https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418295 The Tribunal held that the demands were wrongly confirmed and set aside both orders under challenge. The Supreme Court's precedent was cited to emphasize the strict construction of exceptional powers to extend the period of limitation. The appellant was found not liable for service tax on insurance commissions as an insurance agent. Additionally, the demands related to finance payouts, incentives from MUL, handling and logistic charges, registration charges, consumables used during vehicle servicing, and other expenses were also set aside. The Tribunal found that the Department's verification report supported the appellant's claims, ultimately allowing both appeals and holding the SCNs as barred by the period of limitation. en-us Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:43:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418295 The Tribunal held that the demands were wrongly confirmed and set aside both orders under challenge. The Supreme Court's precedent was cited to emphasize the strict construction of exceptional powers to extend the period of limitation. The appellant was found not liable for service tax on insurance commissions as an insurance agent. Additionally, the demands related to finance payouts, incentives from MUL, handling and logistic charges, registration charges, consumables used during vehicle servicing, and other expenses were also set aside. The Tribunal found that the Department's verification report supported the appellant's claims, ultimately allowing both appeals and holding the SCNs as barred by the period of limitation. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418295