https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451019 CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the appellant travel service provider, setting aside the service tax demand. The court held that the department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation as facts were already known from previous show cause notices, following SC precedent in Nizam Sugar Factory. The services provided by appellant were classified as air travel agent services rather than Business Support Services, making no service tax leviable under the claimed category. The court applied the Larger Bench decision in Kafila Hospitality, concluding that miscellaneous travel-related services fall under air travel agent classification per section 65A of the Act. en-us Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451019 CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the appellant travel service provider, setting aside the service tax demand. The court held that the department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation as facts were already known from previous show cause notices, following SC precedent in Nizam Sugar Factory. The services provided by appellant were classified as air travel agent services rather than Business Support Services, making no service tax leviable under the claimed category. The court applied the Larger Bench decision in Kafila Hospitality, concluding that miscellaneous travel-related services fall under air travel agent classification per section 65A of the Act. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451019