<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (7) TMI 1457 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756237</link>
    <description>Post-graduate and long-duration courses were held exempt from service tax because non-recognition by AICTE did not mean the education was not recognised by law, and the courses also fell within the specific exemption for Indian Institutes of Management. The Tribunal treated education leading to qualifications recognised by law, and education forming part of the curriculum for such qualifications under the negative list regime, as outside the levy. It also held that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked because the department knew the relevant facts, earlier notices had been issued, and there was no deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. The demand and impugned order were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2024 08:35:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1457 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756237</link>
      <description>Post-graduate and long-duration courses were held exempt from service tax because non-recognition by AICTE did not mean the education was not recognised by law, and the courses also fell within the specific exemption for Indian Institutes of Management. The Tribunal treated education leading to qualifications recognised by law, and education forming part of the curriculum for such qualifications under the negative list regime, as outside the levy. It also held that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked because the department knew the relevant facts, earlier notices had been issued, and there was no deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. The demand and impugned order were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>