https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767800 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the adjudication order passed beyond the statutory one-year time limit under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act 1994. The tribunal held that transactions between appellant and a third party constituted sales, not Business Auxiliary Services, thus not liable for service tax under reverse charge mechanism. The demand for service tax on alleged consultancy services for third-party software use was rejected. Extended period for demand was deemed inapplicable due to absence of suppression and revenue neutrality. The adjudication authority failed to provide justification for delay in passing the order within prescribed timeframe. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 06:50:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767800 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the adjudication order passed beyond the statutory one-year time limit under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act 1994. The tribunal held that transactions between appellant and a third party constituted sales, not Business Auxiliary Services, thus not liable for service tax under reverse charge mechanism. The demand for service tax on alleged consultancy services for third-party software use was rejected. Extended period for demand was deemed inapplicable due to absence of suppression and revenue neutrality. The adjudication authority failed to provide justification for delay in passing the order within prescribed timeframe. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767800