https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762358 The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal partially. The tribunal held that extended limitation under Section 73 could not be invoked as no fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement was established. The demand was confirmed only for the normal period regarding works contract services under Rule 2A(ii)(B)(ii). However, the demand for services rendered to SEZ units was set aside, as both works contract and architect services qualified for exemption. The penalty under Section 78 was also set aside. The matter was remanded for redetermination of duty only for the normal period relating to works contract services for non-SEZ units. en-us Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Nov 2024 17:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762358 The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal partially. The tribunal held that extended limitation under Section 73 could not be invoked as no fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement was established. The demand was confirmed only for the normal period regarding works contract services under Rule 2A(ii)(B)(ii). However, the demand for services rendered to SEZ units was set aside, as both works contract and architect services qualified for exemption. The penalty under Section 78 was also set aside. The matter was remanded for redetermination of duty only for the normal period relating to works contract services for non-SEZ units. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762358