https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465296 CESTAT (AT), New Delhi partly allowed the appeal. It held that, based on Form 26AS, ST-3 returns and the appellant's non-cooperation in producing records, the department could not precisely classify services but was justified in treating the works contract services as taxable without abatement due to absence of evidence of value of goods. However, the Tribunal found that, under N/N. 30/2012 as amended, service tax liability for manpower supply post-2015 was entirely on the service recipient, rendering the appellant's liability nil for that activity; the corresponding demand was set aside. Suppression being established, the extended limitation under s.73 was upheld. Penalty was reduced proportionate to the sustained demand. en-us Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 19:06:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465296 CESTAT (AT), New Delhi partly allowed the appeal. It held that, based on Form 26AS, ST-3 returns and the appellant's non-cooperation in producing records, the department could not precisely classify services but was justified in treating the works contract services as taxable without abatement due to absence of evidence of value of goods. However, the Tribunal found that, under N/N. 30/2012 as amended, service tax liability for manpower supply post-2015 was entirely on the service recipient, rendering the appellant's liability nil for that activity; the corresponding demand was set aside. Suppression being established, the extended limitation under s.73 was upheld. Penalty was reduced proportionate to the sustained demand. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465296