CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was...

CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was eligible for benefits under N/N.12/2003-ST for outdoor catering services. The tribunal found no legal prohibition against availing multiple notifications and rejected the adjudicating authority's denial based on VAT assessment methods. The extended period of limitation was deemed improper due to absence of willful suppression or intent to evade tax. The demand for differential service tax, interest, and penalty was set aside, with the tribunal emphasizing that documentary proof provided by the appellant was sufficient and no evidence suggested deliberate tax evasion.

---