https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776614 The CESTAT upheld the demand for service tax recovery with interest and penalty, ruling that the extended limitation period under Section 129(2)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 was correctly invoked due to the appellant's suppression of facts regarding CENVAT Credit. The appellant failed to disclose the netting of tax liability against CENVAT Credit in their SVLDRS declaration, rendering their declaration substantially false. Their non-filing of returns and non-payment of service tax demonstrated an intention to evade tax. The tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that the liability could be adjusted against undisclosed CENVAT Credit, affirming that the penalty under Section 78 was justified. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. en-us Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 08:26:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776614 The CESTAT upheld the demand for service tax recovery with interest and penalty, ruling that the extended limitation period under Section 129(2)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 was correctly invoked due to the appellant's suppression of facts regarding CENVAT Credit. The appellant failed to disclose the netting of tax liability against CENVAT Credit in their SVLDRS declaration, rendering their declaration substantially false. Their non-filing of returns and non-payment of service tax demonstrated an intention to evade tax. The tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that the liability could be adjusted against undisclosed CENVAT Credit, affirming that the penalty under Section 78 was justified. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776614