https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246051 The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded back to the Commissioner(Appeals) for a detailed examination of the demands falling within the normal period of limitation. The court found that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the absence of suppression of material facts by the respondent, as service tax was required to be paid upon receipt of remuneration for services provided. The judge highlighted discrepancies between service tax returns and the accounting basis maintained by the respondent, leading to the decision to remand the matter for further review. en-us Thu, 06 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246051 The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded back to the Commissioner(Appeals) for a detailed examination of the demands falling within the normal period of limitation. The court found that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the absence of suppression of material facts by the respondent, as service tax was required to be paid upon receipt of remuneration for services provided. The judge highlighted discrepancies between service tax returns and the accounting basis maintained by the respondent, leading to the decision to remand the matter for further review. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 06 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246051