https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75384 Service tax demand was held time-barred because the record did not establish deliberate suppression, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The service was also not treated as taxable convention services where the provider was already registered and assessed as a mandap keeper and had been paying tax under that category. The departmental clarification protecting such treatment was applied, while the later January 2003 circular was treated as prospective only. The department's challenge therefore failed, and the assessee succeeded on limitation and merits. en-us Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 May 2010 18:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75384 Service tax demand was held time-barred because the record did not establish deliberate suppression, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The service was also not treated as taxable convention services where the provider was already registered and assessed as a mandap keeper and had been paying tax under that category. The departmental clarification protecting such treatment was applied, while the later January 2003 circular was treated as prospective only. The department's challenge therefore failed, and the assessee succeeded on limitation and merits. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75384