https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764563 CESTAT New Delhi held that extended period of limitation under section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked for service tax demand covering April 2008 to March 2013. The tribunal ruled that mere suppression of facts is insufficient; there must be deliberate and willful attempt to evade payment. Citing SC precedent in Reliance Industries case, the tribunal emphasized that bonafide belief in correct duty discharge, even if ultimately wrong, does not constitute malafide conduct. In self-assessment schemes, genuine interpretation disputes do not justify extended limitation period. The tribunal found no intent to evade service tax payment and allowed the appeal. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:08:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764563 CESTAT New Delhi held that extended period of limitation under section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked for service tax demand covering April 2008 to March 2013. The tribunal ruled that mere suppression of facts is insufficient; there must be deliberate and willful attempt to evade payment. Citing SC precedent in Reliance Industries case, the tribunal emphasized that bonafide belief in correct duty discharge, even if ultimately wrong, does not constitute malafide conduct. In self-assessment schemes, genuine interpretation disputes do not justify extended limitation period. The tribunal found no intent to evade service tax payment and allowed the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764563