https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370186 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the demand for service tax was time-barred and that the invocation of the extended period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was not justified in this case. The Court held that the demand notice issued beyond the statutory period did not fall within the proviso to Section 73, which allows an extension of up to five years in cases of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions with the intent to evade payment of service tax. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:47:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370186 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the demand for service tax was time-barred and that the invocation of the extended period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was not justified in this case. The Court held that the demand notice issued beyond the statutory period did not fall within the proviso to Section 73, which allows an extension of up to five years in cases of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions with the intent to evade payment of service tax. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370186