https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32980 CESTAT held that although the appellant (a manufacturer providing technical and administrative services) did render management-type services, the demand of service tax for the period 16-10-1998 to December 2001, raised on 07-11-2002, was largely time-barred. Because receipts were invoiced and disclosed in annual balance sheets, there was no suppression or intent to evade duty but a bona fide legal interpretation. The tribunal extended benefit of limitation, set aside the impugned order in part, and remanded the matter to the original authority for re-quantification of duty and penalty; appeal disposed. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Nov 2025 15:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32980 CESTAT held that although the appellant (a manufacturer providing technical and administrative services) did render management-type services, the demand of service tax for the period 16-10-1998 to December 2001, raised on 07-11-2002, was largely time-barred. Because receipts were invoiced and disclosed in annual balance sheets, there was no suppression or intent to evade duty but a bona fide legal interpretation. The tribunal extended benefit of limitation, set aside the impugned order in part, and remanded the matter to the original authority for re-quantification of duty and penalty; appeal disposed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32980