https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251319 The Tribunal upheld the classification of the appellant's activities under "Commercial Training or Coaching," making them liable for service tax. The extended period for demand was not invoked due to the appellant's lack of intent to evade tax. Mess charges, hostel fees, and laptop costs were excluded from the taxable value. The penalty under Section 78 was set aside as there was no deliberate suppression of information. The appellant was held liable for service tax within the normal period of limitation, with interest imposed on the re-determined amount but no penalty. en-us Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251319 The Tribunal upheld the classification of the appellant's activities under "Commercial Training or Coaching," making them liable for service tax. The extended period for demand was not invoked due to the appellant's lack of intent to evade tax. Mess charges, hostel fees, and laptop costs were excluded from the taxable value. The penalty under Section 78 was set aside as there was no deliberate suppression of information. The appellant was held liable for service tax within the normal period of limitation, with interest imposed on the re-determined amount but no penalty. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251319