https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766257 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the entire demand and penalty. The tribunal held that extended period of limitation under section 73(1) of Finance Act could not be invoked as the appellant had disclosed Cenvat credit availment in ST3 returns, negating allegations of suppression or concealment. Revenue failed to prove wilful suppression with intent to evade service tax payment. Since appellant was newly registered and disclosed facts in statutory returns, any error was inadvertent rather than deliberate. Consequently, mandatory penalty was also set aside as extended limitation period was not applicable. en-us Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:23:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766257 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the entire demand and penalty. The tribunal held that extended period of limitation under section 73(1) of Finance Act could not be invoked as the appellant had disclosed Cenvat credit availment in ST3 returns, negating allegations of suppression or concealment. Revenue failed to prove wilful suppression with intent to evade service tax payment. Since appellant was newly registered and disclosed facts in statutory returns, any error was inadvertent rather than deliberate. Consequently, mandatory penalty was also set aside as extended limitation period was not applicable. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766257