https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460505 CESTAT Chandigarh ruled that appellant was liable to pay service tax on gross commission rather than net commission received for loan sanctioning services, following precedent in JMD Marketing case and Section 67 of Finance Act. However, the demand was barred by limitation as extended period could not be invoked since appellant had bonafide belief they were liable only on net commission and regularly filed returns. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed solely on limitation grounds. en-us Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:00:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460505 CESTAT Chandigarh ruled that appellant was liable to pay service tax on gross commission rather than net commission received for loan sanctioning services, following precedent in JMD Marketing case and Section 67 of Finance Act. However, the demand was barred by limitation as extended period could not be invoked since appellant had bonafide belief they were liable only on net commission and regularly filed returns. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed solely on limitation grounds. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460505