https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281595 On a prima facie view, the Tribunal held that the exemption under Notification No. 25/2004 dated 10-9-2004 appeared applicable to services incidental or auxiliary to the listed activities, and that the Commissioner had not given adequate reasons for denying the benefit. As the demand related to the period July 2003 to September 2004, the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:24:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281595 On a prima facie view, the Tribunal held that the exemption under Notification No. 25/2004 dated 10-9-2004 appeared applicable to services incidental or auxiliary to the listed activities, and that the Commissioner had not given adequate reasons for denying the benefit. As the demand related to the period July 2003 to September 2004, the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281595