Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT held that the appellant, a study centre, was not entitled to service tax exemption under multiple notifications due to direct fee collection from students. The tribunal found no wilful suppression of facts to justify extended limitation period under section 73(1) of Finance Act. The demand for service tax during normal limitation period was confirmed, while the extended period demand was set aside. The matter was remitted to Commissioner to examine the normal period demand and potential penalties. The appeal was partially allowed, with the appellant required to pay service tax for the standard limitation timeframe.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
