https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759966 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant's services to a foreign manufacturer could not be classified as Business Auxiliary Service under Export of Service Rules, 2005, thus denying service tax exemption. The tribunal found appellant provided maintenance, repair, training, and IT services rather than marketing/sales promotion activities. Since services were rendered and used in India, they did not qualify as export of services. Extended limitation period was validly invoked due to audit findings revealing incorrect tax exemption claims. Penalty under Section 78 and interest on delayed payment were upheld. Appeal dismissed. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:43:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759966 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant's services to a foreign manufacturer could not be classified as Business Auxiliary Service under Export of Service Rules, 2005, thus denying service tax exemption. The tribunal found appellant provided maintenance, repair, training, and IT services rather than marketing/sales promotion activities. Since services were rendered and used in India, they did not qualify as export of services. Extended limitation period was validly invoked due to audit findings revealing incorrect tax exemption claims. Penalty under Section 78 and interest on delayed payment were upheld. Appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 23 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759966