https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785820 Demand under Reverse Charge Mechanism was held unsustainable where it was confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation; the appeal allowed and that demand set aside. Advances received from group companies were characterised as refundable loans, not consideration for taxable services, so service tax demand on advances was set aside. CENVAT credit taken during 2011-12 to 2013-14 was held admissible because it predated the proviso to Rule 4(1), and the disallowance was reversed. Penalties under the relevant penal provisions were quashed for lack of findings or evidence of suppression, fraud, or willful misstatement. en-us Wed, 21 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 08:20:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785820 Demand under Reverse Charge Mechanism was held unsustainable where it was confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation; the appeal allowed and that demand set aside. Advances received from group companies were characterised as refundable loans, not consideration for taxable services, so service tax demand on advances was set aside. CENVAT credit taken during 2011-12 to 2013-14 was held admissible because it predated the proviso to Rule 4(1), and the disallowance was reversed. Penalties under the relevant penal provisions were quashed for lack of findings or evidence of suppression, fraud, or willful misstatement. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 21 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785820