https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769201 CESTAT New Delhi held that where appellant paid service tax with interest before SCN issuance and informed the department, the SCN under section 73(1) of Finance Act was not maintainable. The tribunal found sub-section 73(3) applicable as sub-section 73(4) exceptions for fraud, collusion, or wilful suppression were not established. Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly denied benefit of sub-section 73(3) merely because investigation was initiated by DG Intelligence. Following Supreme Court precedent in Pushpam Pharmaceutical, suppression must be deliberate with intent to evade tax. The impugned order confirming demand was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2025 08:31:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769201 CESTAT New Delhi held that where appellant paid service tax with interest before SCN issuance and informed the department, the SCN under section 73(1) of Finance Act was not maintainable. The tribunal found sub-section 73(3) applicable as sub-section 73(4) exceptions for fraud, collusion, or wilful suppression were not established. Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly denied benefit of sub-section 73(3) merely because investigation was initiated by DG Intelligence. Following Supreme Court precedent in Pushpam Pharmaceutical, suppression must be deliberate with intent to evade tax. The impugned order confirming demand was set aside and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769201