https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293260 The High Court admitted an appeal regarding the interpretation of demand for the normal period of limitation under Section 66A of the Finance Act, noting the absence of Section 73(2A) during the dispute period. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the demand for the extended period under the proviso to Section 73, determining that the appellant's activities fell under Courier Services, not Business Support Service. Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were imposed due to misdeclaration of services provided and concealment of agreements. The judgment addressed legal issues related to Central Excise Appeal, admitting the appeal for further consideration based on substantial questions of law. en-us Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Feb 2021 14:02:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293260 The High Court admitted an appeal regarding the interpretation of demand for the normal period of limitation under Section 66A of the Finance Act, noting the absence of Section 73(2A) during the dispute period. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the demand for the extended period under the proviso to Section 73, determining that the appellant's activities fell under Courier Services, not Business Support Service. Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were imposed due to misdeclaration of services provided and concealment of agreements. The judgment addressed legal issues related to Central Excise Appeal, admitting the appeal for further consideration based on substantial questions of law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293260