https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4275 The appellant provided coaching and educational training services, with authorities confirming service tax, interest, and penalties. The dispute arose from collecting advance fees before services became taxable. The Revenue argued for pro rata tax application post-tax levy. The extended limitation period for demand notice was invoked due to alleged suppression, but the omission was not seen as intentional evasion. Conflicting circulars on pre-tax levy fees taxability caused confusion. As there was no intentional evasion and delayed clarification, the demand notice was barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4275 The appellant provided coaching and educational training services, with authorities confirming service tax, interest, and penalties. The dispute arose from collecting advance fees before services became taxable. The Revenue argued for pro rata tax application post-tax levy. The extended limitation period for demand notice was invoked due to alleged suppression, but the omission was not seen as intentional evasion. Conflicting circulars on pre-tax levy fees taxability caused confusion. As there was no intentional evasion and delayed clarification, the demand notice was barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4275