https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769729 CESTAT Kolkata held that service tax demand raised by invoking extended limitation period was unsustainable as department had already scrutinized appellant's documents including balance sheets and ST-3 returns in 2010, precluding fresh demand under extended period per Nizam Sugar Factory precedent. Since demand was based on public documents without suppression, extended limitation was not invocable. Demand for normal limitation period was upheld but matter remanded to verify appellant's calculation showing balance liability of Rs. 14,48,267 after crediting paid amount of Rs. 4,08,929. Penalties under sections 77(1)(c)(ii) and 78 of Finance Act 1994 were set aside as no suppression was established and appellant was regularly filing returns. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:41:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769729 CESTAT Kolkata held that service tax demand raised by invoking extended limitation period was unsustainable as department had already scrutinized appellant's documents including balance sheets and ST-3 returns in 2010, precluding fresh demand under extended period per Nizam Sugar Factory precedent. Since demand was based on public documents without suppression, extended limitation was not invocable. Demand for normal limitation period was upheld but matter remanded to verify appellant's calculation showing balance liability of Rs. 14,48,267 after crediting paid amount of Rs. 4,08,929. Penalties under sections 77(1)(c)(ii) and 78 of Finance Act 1994 were set aside as no suppression was established and appellant was regularly filing returns. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 26 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769729