https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402297 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal. It held that the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act could not be invoked as there was no willful suppression of facts by the appellant to evade payment of service tax. The appellant successfully defended against various allegations including service tax on advances received before 10.09.2004, irregular CENVAT credit, short-payment of service tax for specific periods, and delay in payment of service tax. en-us Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2021 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402297 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal. It held that the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act could not be invoked as there was no willful suppression of facts by the appellant to evade payment of service tax. The appellant successfully defended against various allegations including service tax on advances received before 10.09.2004, irregular CENVAT credit, short-payment of service tax for specific periods, and delay in payment of service tax. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402297