https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379866 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, ruling that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no evidence of fraudulent activities by the respondent. The Tribunal found that the respondent had genuine doubts regarding the levy of service tax on the disputed service, as supported by their correspondence with the department. It was noted that there was no malafide intent on the respondent's part, and the confusion surrounding the levy of service tax on maintenance or repair services was evident from various notifications and circulars. Previous decisions also indicated ambiguity in this regard, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2019 06:27:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379866 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, ruling that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no evidence of fraudulent activities by the respondent. The Tribunal found that the respondent had genuine doubts regarding the levy of service tax on the disputed service, as supported by their correspondence with the department. It was noted that there was no malafide intent on the respondent's part, and the confusion surrounding the levy of service tax on maintenance or repair services was evident from various notifications and circulars. Previous decisions also indicated ambiguity in this regard, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379866