https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397283 Where Revenue already had knowledge of the relevant facts through audit findings, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and recovery was confined to the normal period. For service tax computation, cum-duty benefit was required to be applied while recalculating the liability for that normal period. Penalty under Section 78 could not survive once the extended limitation period and the related demand for the disputed period failed, so the penalty was set aside. The matter was remanded for recomputation of service tax only within the normal limitation period, with consequential relief in valuation and penalty. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:37:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397283 Where Revenue already had knowledge of the relevant facts through audit findings, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and recovery was confined to the normal period. For service tax computation, cum-duty benefit was required to be applied while recalculating the liability for that normal period. Penalty under Section 78 could not survive once the extended limitation period and the related demand for the disputed period failed, so the penalty was set aside. The matter was remanded for recomputation of service tax only within the normal limitation period, with consequential relief in valuation and penalty. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397283