https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435198 The HC dismissed the appeal, upholding the CESTAT's findings. It affirmed that no substantial question of law was present. The court agreed with the CESTAT that the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, was unjustified due to lack of evidence of fraud or suppression by the respondent. Additionally, the HC supported the CESTAT's decision on the violation of principles of Natural Justice, noting the second Show Cause Notice was issued without a hearing. The demand for the normal period was also set aside due to no misrepresentation by the respondent. en-us Mon, 13 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2024 16:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435198 The HC dismissed the appeal, upholding the CESTAT's findings. It affirmed that no substantial question of law was present. The court agreed with the CESTAT that the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, was unjustified due to lack of evidence of fraud or suppression by the respondent. Additionally, the HC supported the CESTAT's decision on the violation of principles of Natural Justice, noting the second Show Cause Notice was issued without a hearing. The demand for the normal period was also set aside due to no misrepresentation by the respondent. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 13 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435198