https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776310 The CESTAT Chennai held that although the extended period of limitation was invoked for short payment of service tax from April 2005 to December 2009, the Revenue failed to prove suppression with intent to evade tax. The appellant admitted short payment but contested the penalty, denying any fraud or suppression. The tribunal found that penalty under Section 78 could only be imposed if the extended period invocation is justified by fraud, collusion, or willful suppression, which was not established here. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:20:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776310 The CESTAT Chennai held that although the extended period of limitation was invoked for short payment of service tax from April 2005 to December 2009, the Revenue failed to prove suppression with intent to evade tax. The appellant admitted short payment but contested the penalty, denying any fraud or suppression. The tribunal found that penalty under Section 78 could only be imposed if the extended period invocation is justified by fraud, collusion, or willful suppression, which was not established here. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776310