https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271986 The court quashed the impugned orders and show cause notices demanding Service Tax and penalties, remanding the case for fresh consideration by the respondent. The petitioner, a private engineering firm, successfully argued against willful suppression of facts and highlighted the burden of Service Tax on the Service Receiver. The court emphasized the necessity of proving intent to evade duty for invoking the extended period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent's failure to consider crucial aspects led to the decision in favor of the petitioner, directing a reevaluation in line with legal principles. en-us Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271986 The court quashed the impugned orders and show cause notices demanding Service Tax and penalties, remanding the case for fresh consideration by the respondent. The petitioner, a private engineering firm, successfully argued against willful suppression of facts and highlighted the burden of Service Tax on the Service Receiver. The court emphasized the necessity of proving intent to evade duty for invoking the extended period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent's failure to consider crucial aspects led to the decision in favor of the petitioner, directing a reevaluation in line with legal principles. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271986