https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221130 The appellant successfully argued against a time-barred demand for Service tax, as the Commissioner ruled that there was no suppression of facts to evade tax and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The demand was deemed applicable only from 1-4-2007. Additionally, the appellant's activity of transshipment of household articles was held not to fall under Cargo Handling Service, as it involved individual household articles rather than bulk cargo, leading to the appeal being allowed and the confirmation of tax, interest, and penalty being set aside. en-us Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221130 The appellant successfully argued against a time-barred demand for Service tax, as the Commissioner ruled that there was no suppression of facts to evade tax and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The demand was deemed applicable only from 1-4-2007. Additionally, the appellant's activity of transshipment of household articles was held not to fall under Cargo Handling Service, as it involved individual household articles rather than bulk cargo, leading to the appeal being allowed and the confirmation of tax, interest, and penalty being set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221130