https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751148 CESTAT New Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without establishing suppression with intent to evade, not mere omission. The tribunal set aside demand beyond normal 18-month limitation period and penalties under section 78 of Finance Act, finding Commissioner wrongly understood law. Revenue's appeal was rejected on multiple grounds: abatement claim for material costs was correctly allowed at 60%, VCES scheme documents were unavailable despite efforts, and sales receipts were properly classified as goods sales rather than taxable services. The tribunal emphasized that service tax requires proof of service provision, taxable nature, and consideration received. Matter remanded for calculating service tax within normal limitation period. en-us Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Apr 2024 14:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751148 CESTAT New Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without establishing suppression with intent to evade, not mere omission. The tribunal set aside demand beyond normal 18-month limitation period and penalties under section 78 of Finance Act, finding Commissioner wrongly understood law. Revenue's appeal was rejected on multiple grounds: abatement claim for material costs was correctly allowed at 60%, VCES scheme documents were unavailable despite efforts, and sales receipts were properly classified as goods sales rather than taxable services. The tribunal emphasized that service tax requires proof of service provision, taxable nature, and consideration received. Matter remanded for calculating service tax within normal limitation period. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751148