https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33863 The extended period of limitation for confirming a service tax demand could not be invoked where the ingredients for penalty under section 78 were not established. The absence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax meant the necessary factual foundation for extended limitation was lacking. Since that finding was not challenged, it could not be used to sustain the demand beyond the normal limitation period. The demand and related penalty were therefore not enforceable, and the order setting them aside was sustained. en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33863 The extended period of limitation for confirming a service tax demand could not be invoked where the ingredients for penalty under section 78 were not established. The absence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax meant the necessary factual foundation for extended limitation was lacking. Since that finding was not challenged, it could not be used to sustain the demand beyond the normal limitation period. The demand and related penalty were therefore not enforceable, and the order setting them aside was sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 26 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33863