https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762239 The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appellant's appeal on limitation grounds without examining the merits. The Tribunal found that the Original Authority correctly determined no service was involved, only sale of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly stated the appellant failed to provide documents and wrongly interpreted an invoice dated 18.04.2015 to confirm demand. Following precedent in Girdhari Lal Construction Private Limited, the Tribunal held that extended limitation period cannot be invoked when show cause notice is based on third party data for the disputed period 2015-16. en-us Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762239 The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appellant's appeal on limitation grounds without examining the merits. The Tribunal found that the Original Authority correctly determined no service was involved, only sale of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly stated the appellant failed to provide documents and wrongly interpreted an invoice dated 18.04.2015 to confirm demand. Following precedent in Girdhari Lal Construction Private Limited, the Tribunal held that extended limitation period cannot be invoked when show cause notice is based on third party data for the disputed period 2015-16. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762239