https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33568 The appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal was rejected. The main issue was whether the demand of service tax for a specific period was time-barred. Despite acknowledging the demand's merit, the Commissioner dropped it due to the limitation issue. The Revenue argued against this decision, emphasizing the Respondents' registration for service tax in 2004. However, the Advocate for the Respondents highlighted statutory provisions and events, showing that the Respondents genuinely believed their activity was not taxable until a later amendment. The Member (T) upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating it was legal and correct. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33568 The appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal was rejected. The main issue was whether the demand of service tax for a specific period was time-barred. Despite acknowledging the demand's merit, the Commissioner dropped it due to the limitation issue. The Revenue argued against this decision, emphasizing the Respondents' registration for service tax in 2004. However, the Advocate for the Respondents highlighted statutory provisions and events, showing that the Respondents genuinely believed their activity was not taxable until a later amendment. The Member (T) upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating it was legal and correct. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33568