<?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 572 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370229</link>
    <description>Extended limitation cannot be invoked to sustain a service tax demand unless the Revenue proves suppression, mis-statement, or mala fide intent by positive evidence. Where the assessee disclosed the relevant transactions in its balance sheet and the underlying taxability issue was legally debatable, the extended period was unavailable. The demand was therefore held time-barred, and the related interest and penalty were also set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 07:12:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 572 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370229</link>
      <description>Extended limitation cannot be invoked to sustain a service tax demand unless the Revenue proves suppression, mis-statement, or mala fide intent by positive evidence. Where the assessee disclosed the relevant transactions in its balance sheet and the underlying taxability issue was legally debatable, the extended period was unavailable. The demand was therefore held time-barred, and the related interest and penalty were also set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>