https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173733 At the stay stage, the Tribunal held that the appellants had shown a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. It noted that the scope of exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST could not be curtailed by departmental clarification, and that the appellants had material to contest the inclusion of study material value in the coaching service demand. It also observed that reconciliation of receipts shown against franchisee services required examination at final hearing. On that basis, the amount already deposited was treated as sufficient for admission of the appeal. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:32:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173733 At the stay stage, the Tribunal held that the appellants had shown a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. It noted that the scope of exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST could not be curtailed by departmental clarification, and that the appellants had material to contest the inclusion of study material value in the coaching service demand. It also observed that reconciliation of receipts shown against franchisee services required examination at final hearing. On that basis, the amount already deposited was treated as sufficient for admission of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173733