https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449818 The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal challenging penalty under Section 78 and invocation of extended limitation period. The appellant had paid service tax with interest before the show-cause notice was issued. The Tribunal held that mere non-payment of service tax and non-filing of returns insufficient to invoke extended limitation period without evidence of positive suppression acts. Following Karnataka HC precedent, the Tribunal ruled that Section 73(3) of Finance Act 1994 bars authorities from issuing notices after service tax and interest payment, making the impugned order unsustainable. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2024 07:11:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449818 The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal challenging penalty under Section 78 and invocation of extended limitation period. The appellant had paid service tax with interest before the show-cause notice was issued. The Tribunal held that mere non-payment of service tax and non-filing of returns insufficient to invoke extended limitation period without evidence of positive suppression acts. Following Karnataka HC precedent, the Tribunal ruled that Section 73(3) of Finance Act 1994 bars authorities from issuing notices after service tax and interest payment, making the impugned order unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449818