https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275556 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the demand for service tax on input services was time-barred due to the lack of evidence of suppression, fraud, or misstatement to justify invoking the extended limitation period. The appellant successfully argued that trading activities were not exempted services under the Cenvat Credit Rules and that the demand was barred by limitation. The Tribunal set aside the order, providing consequential relief to the appellant solely based on the limitation issue without addressing the merits of the case. en-us Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Oct 2018 07:23:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275556 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the demand for service tax on input services was time-barred due to the lack of evidence of suppression, fraud, or misstatement to justify invoking the extended limitation period. The appellant successfully argued that trading activities were not exempted services under the Cenvat Credit Rules and that the demand was barred by limitation. The Tribunal set aside the order, providing consequential relief to the appellant solely based on the limitation issue without addressing the merits of the case. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275556