https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752569 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal against service tax demand for 2003-07. The tribunal held that extended limitation period could not be invoked as the appellant was registered, filing returns, and maintaining records accessible to the department with no evidence of suppression or willful misstatement. Following Supreme Court precedent in Uniworth Textiles, the revenue failed to prove specific grounds for extended limitation. The SCN dated 20.10.2008 was time-barred. Additionally, service tax calculation was improper as it failed to recognize different rates applicable within months when rates changed. However, interest on delayed payment was upheld as the appellant had accepted liability and paid the amounts. en-us Thu, 02 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 May 2024 15:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752569 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal against service tax demand for 2003-07. The tribunal held that extended limitation period could not be invoked as the appellant was registered, filing returns, and maintaining records accessible to the department with no evidence of suppression or willful misstatement. Following Supreme Court precedent in Uniworth Textiles, the revenue failed to prove specific grounds for extended limitation. The SCN dated 20.10.2008 was time-barred. Additionally, service tax calculation was improper as it failed to recognize different rates applicable within months when rates changed. However, interest on delayed payment was upheld as the appellant had accepted liability and paid the amounts. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 02 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752569