https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775197 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that while appellants had a strong case on merits regarding cargo handling service classification, the entire service tax demand was time-barred. The demand period was April 2009 to November 2011, but the show cause notice was issued on 22.10.2014, clearly exceeding the limitation period. The Department failed to establish essential ingredients under Section 73(1) required for extended limitation period, including fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Following precedents from Allahabad HC and Bombay HC, the tribunal held that when demand is barred by limitation, merits need not be examined. The appeal was allowed solely on limitation grounds without addressing the substantive issues of service classification or tax liability. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775197 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that while appellants had a strong case on merits regarding cargo handling service classification, the entire service tax demand was time-barred. The demand period was April 2009 to November 2011, but the show cause notice was issued on 22.10.2014, clearly exceeding the limitation period. The Department failed to establish essential ingredients under Section 73(1) required for extended limitation period, including fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Following precedents from Allahabad HC and Bombay HC, the tribunal held that when demand is barred by limitation, merits need not be examined. The appeal was allowed solely on limitation grounds without addressing the substantive issues of service classification or tax liability. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775197