https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446997 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service tax demand on brokerage for steam agent services for April 2012-March 2013 was sustainable on merit but extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Following its earlier decision in INTERMARK SHIPPING AGENCIES and SC precedent in Nizam Sugar, the tribunal ruled that suppression of facts cannot be invoked for subsequent show cause notices on the same issue when an earlier notice was already issued. The demand for extended period was set aside while normal period demand was upheld. Appeal was allowed in part with impugned order modified accordingly. en-us Thu, 14 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446997 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service tax demand on brokerage for steam agent services for April 2012-March 2013 was sustainable on merit but extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Following its earlier decision in INTERMARK SHIPPING AGENCIES and SC precedent in Nizam Sugar, the tribunal ruled that suppression of facts cannot be invoked for subsequent show cause notices on the same issue when an earlier notice was already issued. The demand for extended period was set aside while normal period demand was upheld. Appeal was allowed in part with impugned order modified accordingly. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 14 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446997