Topic
CESTAT Chandigarh sets aside service tax demand invoking extended limitation period, ruling that third-party data alone is insufficient to prove suppression or willful default. The decision clarifies that fraud or intentional suppression must be established with concrete evidence to justify the extended period under service tax laws.
CESTAT Chandigarh sets aside a service tax demand of Rs. 9,22,761 after finding the extended limitation period was invoked without proving fraud or suppression of facts. The ruling clarifies that mere discrepancies in income tax and service tax returns do not suffice to justify extended period demands under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Chandigarh rules that Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be applied retrospectively, setting aside a Rs. 55,01,282 demand for the period prior to September 20, 1991. The ruling reinforces that excise duty demands under Section 11D are prospective only, impacting businesses facing retrospective tax claims.
CESTAT Chandigarh holds that Special Economic Zone units are not bound by the one-year limitation period in Finance Act notifications for service tax refunds, as their entitlement arises from statutory exemption provisions under the SEZ Act. This clarifies that SEZ-specific refund rights operate independently of general time bars, benefiting exporters and SEZ-based service recipients with delayed claims.