https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780123 CESTAT CHANDIGARH - AT allowed the appeal on limitation, holding Revenue failed to justify invocation of the extended period. The tribunal found the appellants had a bona fide belief in non-liability based on a letter from their client and that the Department could have obtained information by other means instead of relying on appellants to self-incriminate. However, the tribunal noted the appellants did not prove the constructions were exclusively for non-commercial purposes and that registration under s.12AA IT Act does not determine service exigibility under the Finance Act; confirmation of duty pertains to works contract. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Oct 2025 09:18:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780123 CESTAT CHANDIGARH - AT allowed the appeal on limitation, holding Revenue failed to justify invocation of the extended period. The tribunal found the appellants had a bona fide belief in non-liability based on a letter from their client and that the Department could have obtained information by other means instead of relying on appellants to self-incriminate. However, the tribunal noted the appellants did not prove the constructions were exclusively for non-commercial purposes and that registration under s.12AA IT Act does not determine service exigibility under the Finance Act; confirmation of duty pertains to works contract. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780123