https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775387 The CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the demand for recovery of excess service tax adjusted was time barred. Although the appellant failed to comply with certain procedural conditions under Rule 6(4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the excess payment of service tax was admitted and adjustments were made without malafide intent. The department's invocation of the extended limitation period was rejected as there was no suppression of facts or tax evasion. The show cause notice issued beyond the 18-month limitation period under section 43(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held invalid. Consequently, the orders demanding service tax, interest, and penalties were set aside. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:28:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775387 The CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the demand for recovery of excess service tax adjusted was time barred. Although the appellant failed to comply with certain procedural conditions under Rule 6(4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the excess payment of service tax was admitted and adjustments were made without malafide intent. The department's invocation of the extended limitation period was rejected as there was no suppression of facts or tax evasion. The show cause notice issued beyond the 18-month limitation period under section 43(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held invalid. Consequently, the orders demanding service tax, interest, and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775387