https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775888 The CESTAT held that there was no evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement by the appellant to invoke the extended period of limitation for service tax recovery. The appellant's partial payments and financial hardship explanation were accepted. The demand for the period October 2008 to August 2009 was barred by limitation, as the second SCN issued on 17.02.2011 could only cover September 2009 to September 2010 within the normal limitation period. The appellant was held liable to pay service tax with interest for the period September 2009 to September 2010, and the penalty under Section 77 was upheld. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh computation of duty liability and adherence to natural justice, to be completed within ninety days. The appeal was allowed in part. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Aug 2025 08:26:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775888 The CESTAT held that there was no evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement by the appellant to invoke the extended period of limitation for service tax recovery. The appellant's partial payments and financial hardship explanation were accepted. The demand for the period October 2008 to August 2009 was barred by limitation, as the second SCN issued on 17.02.2011 could only cover September 2009 to September 2010 within the normal limitation period. The appellant was held liable to pay service tax with interest for the period September 2009 to September 2010, and the penalty under Section 77 was upheld. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh computation of duty liability and adherence to natural justice, to be completed within ninety days. The appeal was allowed in part. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775888