https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=592 The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation, finding that the demand of service tax and penalty imposition under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, was not applicable due to the absence of mis-statement by the appellant. The appellant's misunderstanding in declaring receipts from registered dealers did not amount to a deliberate mis-statement, as clarified by a comparison of relevant columns in the returns. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand and penalty, providing consequential relief to the appellants. en-us Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=592 The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation, finding that the demand of service tax and penalty imposition under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, was not applicable due to the absence of mis-statement by the appellant. The appellant's misunderstanding in declaring receipts from registered dealers did not amount to a deliberate mis-statement, as clarified by a comparison of relevant columns in the returns. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand and penalty, providing consequential relief to the appellants. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=592