https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381610 The Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, ruling that the extended period of limitation under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 did not apply to the case. The Court found that the respondent had informed the Department in 2006 about not being liable to pay service tax on a specific levy, and therefore, there was no suppression of facts justifying the extended period. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the issue did not raise a substantial question of law. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:49:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381610 The Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, ruling that the extended period of limitation under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 did not apply to the case. The Court found that the respondent had informed the Department in 2006 about not being liable to pay service tax on a specific levy, and therefore, there was no suppression of facts justifying the extended period. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the issue did not raise a substantial question of law. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381610