https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441208 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that their Commission Agent services qualified for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST as they were non-branded. The extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable due to the appellant's genuine belief in exemption. The assessment under Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994 was directed to be reassessed with the appellant's data. The appellant was held liable to pay service tax on the gross value of services and entitled to Cenvat credit for service tax paid by the MSO. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for quantification within the limitation period. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Aug 2023 07:48:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441208 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that their Commission Agent services qualified for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST as they were non-branded. The extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable due to the appellant's genuine belief in exemption. The assessment under Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994 was directed to be reassessed with the appellant's data. The appellant was held liable to pay service tax on the gross value of services and entitled to Cenvat credit for service tax paid by the MSO. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for quantification within the limitation period. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 02 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441208