Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The CESTAT held that the extended period of limitation invoked for levying service tax was unsustainable as there was no wilful suppression of facts by the appellant. The demands of Rs.1,01,6,502/- under 'sponsorship' services, Rs.13,30,558/- on inter-company expenses, and Rs.20,371/- as interest were set aside. For renting services, the demand of Rs.2,45,58,483/- was set aside, and the appellant was directed to produce evidence for the remaining Rs.34,29,130/-. The demands of Rs.73,00,732/- for import of services and Rs.2,80,40,921/- for software licenses were remanded for de-novo adjudication to determine the appellant's role and liabilities. The penalties were also set aside. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.