https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750890 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant's services constituted courier service rather than goods transport agency service, based on characteristics including transport of small consignments, booking slips, standard declarations prohibiting personal mail/currency/jewellery, and tracking numbers. The court found no deliberate misclassification warranting extended limitation period invocation under section 73(1) Finance Act, as appellant genuinely believed services fell under goods transport agency classification. Officer's failure to scrutinize returns timely prevented demand within normal limitation period. Extended period demand and section 78 penalty set aside; normal period demand with interest upheld. Appeal allowed partially. en-us Tue, 02 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:25:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750890 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant's services constituted courier service rather than goods transport agency service, based on characteristics including transport of small consignments, booking slips, standard declarations prohibiting personal mail/currency/jewellery, and tracking numbers. The court found no deliberate misclassification warranting extended limitation period invocation under section 73(1) Finance Act, as appellant genuinely believed services fell under goods transport agency classification. Officer's failure to scrutinize returns timely prevented demand within normal limitation period. Extended period demand and section 78 penalty set aside; normal period demand with interest upheld. Appeal allowed partially. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 02 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750890