https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766349 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal by remand in a service tax matter involving discrepancies in turnover reporting for FY 2015-16. The appellant challenged invocation of extended limitation period under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, citing precedents that mere discrepancies don't justify extended period. While CESTAT noted the appellant failed to rectify statutory filings, it found the adjudicating authority erred by not examining details of goods supplied versus services rendered. The authority failed to distinguish between trading activities (excluded from service tax) and taxable services, affecting the order's credibility and warranting fresh examination of evidence. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2025 08:05:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766349 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal by remand in a service tax matter involving discrepancies in turnover reporting for FY 2015-16. The appellant challenged invocation of extended limitation period under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, citing precedents that mere discrepancies don't justify extended period. While CESTAT noted the appellant failed to rectify statutory filings, it found the adjudicating authority erred by not examining details of goods supplied versus services rendered. The authority failed to distinguish between trading activities (excluded from service tax) and taxable services, affecting the order's credibility and warranting fresh examination of evidence. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766349