https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442399 HC allowed the appeal, holding the service-tax demand time-barred as extended limitation under s.73(1) proviso was inapplicable absent suppression, since the appellant had claimed exemption under N/N. 13/2003-ST. It ruled that the notification exempts all Business Auxiliary Services provided by a commission agent, not merely promotion and marketing, following the coordinate bench ruling in Chahabria Marketing, which the Tribunal wrongly ignored. Testing and veterinary services on chicks were held excluded from "technical testing and analysis" under s.65(106), negating their taxability as Business Auxiliary Services. The HC also held that, with no underlying tax liability, interest and penalty, including under s.78, could not be sustained. The Tribunal's cryptic ROM rejection was set aside and the appeal allowed in toto. en-us Mon, 28 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 14:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442399 HC allowed the appeal, holding the service-tax demand time-barred as extended limitation under s.73(1) proviso was inapplicable absent suppression, since the appellant had claimed exemption under N/N. 13/2003-ST. It ruled that the notification exempts all Business Auxiliary Services provided by a commission agent, not merely promotion and marketing, following the coordinate bench ruling in Chahabria Marketing, which the Tribunal wrongly ignored. Testing and veterinary services on chicks were held excluded from "technical testing and analysis" under s.65(106), negating their taxability as Business Auxiliary Services. The HC also held that, with no underlying tax liability, interest and penalty, including under s.78, could not be sustained. The Tribunal's cryptic ROM rejection was set aside and the appeal allowed in toto. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 28 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442399