https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771896 CESTAT New Delhi held that extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked in the first SCN as intent to evade service tax was not established, despite appellant's violation of Act provisions. The tribunal distinguished between mere non-payment and willful suppression, requiring deliberate intent for extended limitation. Service tax demands were upheld within normal limitation period on amounts received from foreign airline and payments to foreign counterparts under reverse charge mechanism. All penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 were set aside invoking section 80, finding appellant's non-compliance due to reasonable cause of incorrect legal understanding. Appeal allowed with remand for appropriation of paid amounts. en-us Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 May 2025 14:31:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771896 CESTAT New Delhi held that extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked in the first SCN as intent to evade service tax was not established, despite appellant's violation of Act provisions. The tribunal distinguished between mere non-payment and willful suppression, requiring deliberate intent for extended limitation. Service tax demands were upheld within normal limitation period on amounts received from foreign airline and payments to foreign counterparts under reverse charge mechanism. All penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 were set aside invoking section 80, finding appellant's non-compliance due to reasonable cause of incorrect legal understanding. Appeal allowed with remand for appropriation of paid amounts. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771896