https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341589 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order confirming service tax liability under "Business Auxiliary Service." It held that the demand notice issued beyond the normal period was time-barred, emphasizing that repeat notices for subsequent periods cannot be issued based on suppression of facts. Citing precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was hit by the time bar provision of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's argument regarding the similarity of activities under different tax sub-clauses compared to earlier notices was considered, leading to the appeal being allowed solely on the ground of time bar. en-us Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341589 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order confirming service tax liability under "Business Auxiliary Service." It held that the demand notice issued beyond the normal period was time-barred, emphasizing that repeat notices for subsequent periods cannot be issued based on suppression of facts. Citing precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was hit by the time bar provision of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's argument regarding the similarity of activities under different tax sub-clauses compared to earlier notices was considered, leading to the appeal being allowed solely on the ground of time bar. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341589