https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352120 The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's demand of 8% of the value of exempted services due to non-maintenance of separate accounts for input services. The appellant successfully argued that they had exercised the option under Rule 6(3A) of CCR Rule 2004 within the stipulated time frame, emphasizing that procedural violations do not automatically trigger the extended period of limitation. The judicial member ruled in favor of the appellant, citing precedents to support that Rule 6(3A) is procedural and does not warrant the application of punitive measures for a delay in intimation. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352120 The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's demand of 8% of the value of exempted services due to non-maintenance of separate accounts for input services. The appellant successfully argued that they had exercised the option under Rule 6(3A) of CCR Rule 2004 within the stipulated time frame, emphasizing that procedural violations do not automatically trigger the extended period of limitation. The judicial member ruled in favor of the appellant, citing precedents to support that Rule 6(3A) is procedural and does not warrant the application of punitive measures for a delay in intimation. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352120