https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349555 The Tribunal classified the services provided by appellants as "Commercial Training or Coaching Services" under the Finance Act, 1994. NICMAR and MIT Institute of Design were not eligible for exemptions under relevant notifications. The extended period of limitation was upheld due to suppression of facts. MIT's challenge to the quantification of demand was remanded for re-quantification. Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act were upheld. NICMAR's appeal was dismissed, while MIT's appeal was remanded for re-quantification of demand and penalties verification. (Pronounced in court on 12/10/2017) en-us Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349555 The Tribunal classified the services provided by appellants as "Commercial Training or Coaching Services" under the Finance Act, 1994. NICMAR and MIT Institute of Design were not eligible for exemptions under relevant notifications. The extended period of limitation was upheld due to suppression of facts. MIT's challenge to the quantification of demand was remanded for re-quantification. Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act were upheld. NICMAR's appeal was dismissed, while MIT's appeal was remanded for re-quantification of demand and penalties verification. (Pronounced in court on 12/10/2017) Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349555