https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351587 The case involved issues regarding the limitation period for service tax demand, revenue neutrality, suppression of facts, and penalty imposition under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The majority decision held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to the absence of willful suppression or intent to evade tax. Consequently, the demand was time-barred, and the revenue's appeal was rejected. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351587 The case involved issues regarding the limitation period for service tax demand, revenue neutrality, suppression of facts, and penalty imposition under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The majority decision held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to the absence of willful suppression or intent to evade tax. Consequently, the demand was time-barred, and the revenue's appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351587