https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369290 Rectification cannot be used to reopen a conscious merits finding on limitation, so the request to revisit denial of time-bar relief was rejected. The claim that courses under the Convergence Scheme and foreign university-linked degrees were recognised by law, and therefore outside service tax, also failed because the record did not show reliable course-specific recognition or supporting proof; the service tax challenge on that basis was rejected. By contrast, Notification No. 24/2004-ST continued to exempt vocational training services until its scope was prospectively curtailed by Notification No. 3/2010-ST on 27/02/2010, so the service tax demand on the Diploma in Design course was set aside for the prior period. en-us Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:13:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369290 Rectification cannot be used to reopen a conscious merits finding on limitation, so the request to revisit denial of time-bar relief was rejected. The claim that courses under the Convergence Scheme and foreign university-linked degrees were recognised by law, and therefore outside service tax, also failed because the record did not show reliable course-specific recognition or supporting proof; the service tax challenge on that basis was rejected. By contrast, Notification No. 24/2004-ST continued to exempt vocational training services until its scope was prospectively curtailed by Notification No. 3/2010-ST on 27/02/2010, so the service tax demand on the Diploma in Design course was set aside for the prior period. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369290