Extended limitation fails without suppression, while service tax exemption requires proof of prescribed training approval.

The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable because an earlier show cause notice on the same issue for the preceding period had already been issued, so suppression was not established; the extended-period demand was deleted. The exemption claim as a vocational training institute or approved training partner failed because the appellant did not prove the prescribed affiliation or approval required by the notifications. In the absence of evidence of eligibility, the exemption was denied for the normal period, and that demand was sustained. Partial relief was thus confined to deletion of the extended-period demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand when an earlier notice on the same issue for the preceding period already existed; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from service tax as a vocational training institute or approved training partner without proof of the prescribed affiliation or approval.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand when an earlier notice on the same issue for the preceding period already existed.

Analysis: The demand notices in both matters related to the same issue, and the record showed that an earlier show cause notice for the preceding period had already been issued. On that basis, the element of suppression necessary for invoking the extended period was not made out. The Department also fairly conceded that the extended period should not have been applied in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable, and the demand for the extended period was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from service tax as a vocational training institute or approved training partner without proof of the prescribed affiliation or approval.

Analysis: The exemption under the relevant notifications was conditional. For vocational training institutes, the notification contemplated training imparted to enable employment, and for the later exemption entry the appellant had to establish approval by the National Skill Development Corporation or the Sector Skill Council. The appellant did not produce evidence of the required affiliation or approval despite opportunities before the authorities and the Tribunal. In the absence of proof of eligibility, the exemption claim could not be accepted for the normal period demand.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exemption for the normal period, and the demand for the normal period was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The common order resulted in partial relief only to the extent of deleting the extended-period demand, while the tax demand for the normal period was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption from service tax available to vocational training institutions or approved training partners can be claimed only on proof of fulfillment of the prescribed statutory conditions, and the extended period cannot be invoked where the facts show a prior notice on the same issue without suppression.

---