https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218276 In a service-tax valuation dispute, the extended-period demand was, prima facie, vulnerable because the record showed prior audit proceedings and objections, indicating a strong limitation objection on alleged suppression. However, full waiver of pre-deposit was not justified on the claimed exemption issues: exclusion of goods value under Notification No. 12/2003-ST lacked supporting invoices or other documentary proof of sale to the service recipient, and the 67% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST was prima facie unavailable because Cenvat credit had been taken on input services contrary to the notification conditions. Cum-duty benefit also did not establish entitlement to total waiver. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218276 In a service-tax valuation dispute, the extended-period demand was, prima facie, vulnerable because the record showed prior audit proceedings and objections, indicating a strong limitation objection on alleged suppression. However, full waiver of pre-deposit was not justified on the claimed exemption issues: exclusion of goods value under Notification No. 12/2003-ST lacked supporting invoices or other documentary proof of sale to the service recipient, and the 67% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST was prima facie unavailable because Cenvat credit had been taken on input services contrary to the notification conditions. Cum-duty benefit also did not establish entitlement to total waiver. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218276