https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379114 The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to confirm the demand only for the normal period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The imposition of penalty on the appellant was deemed unjustified due to the lack of suppression or intent to evade service tax, as the department was already aware of the issue. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural adherence and the necessity of a valid basis for invoking extended time provisos and imposing penalties in tax cases. en-us Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 28 Apr 2019 12:06:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379114 The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to confirm the demand only for the normal period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The imposition of penalty on the appellant was deemed unjustified due to the lack of suppression or intent to evade service tax, as the department was already aware of the issue. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural adherence and the necessity of a valid basis for invoking extended time provisos and imposing penalties in tax cases. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379114