https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784071 The dominant issue was whether the service tax demand for Oct 2014-Mar 2015, raised by SCN dated 28.09.2020, was time-barred due to impermissible invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal found the assessee had been paying service tax and filing returns (though under an incorrect PAN), and the allegation arose from departmental audit findings and third-party income-tax data. Applying consistent CESTAT precedent that extended period cannot be invoked when the demand is founded on audit objections or third-party data, the Tribunal held the demand was beyond limitation; consequently, the entire demand with penalties was set aside and the appeal was allowed on limitation. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784071 The dominant issue was whether the service tax demand for Oct 2014-Mar 2015, raised by SCN dated 28.09.2020, was time-barred due to impermissible invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal found the assessee had been paying service tax and filing returns (though under an incorrect PAN), and the allegation arose from departmental audit findings and third-party income-tax data. Applying consistent CESTAT precedent that extended period cannot be invoked when the demand is founded on audit objections or third-party data, the Tribunal held the demand was beyond limitation; consequently, the entire demand with penalties was set aside and the appeal was allowed on limitation. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784071