<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (11) TMI 86 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369743</link>
    <description>Extended limitation for service tax could not be invoked where the department had already audited the same records for the relevant period and raised no objection, because a later audit alone did not establish suppression or misstatement by the assessee. The Tribunal treated the material facts as already within departmental knowledge through the first audit, so the statutory ingredients for the extended period were absent. The demand was therefore held time-barred and set aside, with relief granted to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2018 13:41:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 86 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369743</link>
      <description>Extended limitation for service tax could not be invoked where the department had already audited the same records for the relevant period and raised no objection, because a later audit alone did not establish suppression or misstatement by the assessee. The Tribunal treated the material facts as already within departmental knowledge through the first audit, so the statutory ingredients for the extended period were absent. The demand was therefore held time-barred and set aside, with relief granted to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>