https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765310 CESTAT Chennai held that Revenue failed to justify invoking extended limitation period for service tax liability under Business Auxiliary Services on early payment incentives received by appellant. The tribunal found no cross-verification of advance payments by end customers versus appellant's payments, and no specific finding establishing service tax liability on incentives. Revenue's case relied solely on scrutiny of financial records without proving suppression warranting extended limitation under Section 73(1) Finance Act 1994. The demand for period 2007-2011 lacked merit and the impugned order was set aside. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jan 2025 08:24:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765310 CESTAT Chennai held that Revenue failed to justify invoking extended limitation period for service tax liability under Business Auxiliary Services on early payment incentives received by appellant. The tribunal found no cross-verification of advance payments by end customers versus appellant's payments, and no specific finding establishing service tax liability on incentives. Revenue's case relied solely on scrutiny of financial records without proving suppression warranting extended limitation under Section 73(1) Finance Act 1994. The demand for period 2007-2011 lacked merit and the impugned order was set aside. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765310