CESTAT allowed the appeal challenging service tax demand based...

CESTAT allowed the appeal challenging service tax demand based on discrepancy between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS data. The Tribunal held that revenue cannot raise demand solely on differences between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS without examining reasons for variance or establishing that amounts received constituted consideration for taxable services. The appellant demonstrated non-receipt of payment due to billing disputes, negating the quid pro quo requirement under Section 66B of Finance Act, 1994. Extended limitation period was wrongly invoked as the appellant maintained proper records and filed regular returns, negating suppression of material facts. The demand was time-barred and lacked corroborative evidence beyond Form 26AS data, rendering the original order unsustainable.