https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757997 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal in a service tax recovery case involving CENVAT credit denial and demand based on 26AS records. The Tribunal held that no positive act of commission or omission by the appellant evidenced suppression of facts or mis-declaration with intent to evade duty. Given divergent judicial opinions during the relevant period, Revenue failed to establish grounds for invoking the extended limitation period. The show cause notice invoking extended period was deemed non-maintainable, and portions of demand exceeded even the extended period. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2024 08:18:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757997 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal in a service tax recovery case involving CENVAT credit denial and demand based on 26AS records. The Tribunal held that no positive act of commission or omission by the appellant evidenced suppression of facts or mis-declaration with intent to evade duty. Given divergent judicial opinions during the relevant period, Revenue failed to establish grounds for invoking the extended limitation period. The show cause notice invoking extended period was deemed non-maintainable, and portions of demand exceeded even the extended period. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757997