https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769199 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal concerning denial of benefit under N/N.12/2003 for outdoor catering services. The tribunal held that multiple notification benefits can be availed simultaneously unless explicitly barred, and VAT assessment methods should not be confused with tax nature. The appellant's documentary proof showing separate goods/materials value was sufficient. The extended limitation period invocation was improper as there was no evidence of willful suppression or intent to evade duty, particularly when previous audits were conducted and returns filed regularly. The demand for differential service tax and penalty was set aside. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2025 08:31:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769199 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal concerning denial of benefit under N/N.12/2003 for outdoor catering services. The tribunal held that multiple notification benefits can be availed simultaneously unless explicitly barred, and VAT assessment methods should not be confused with tax nature. The appellant's documentary proof showing separate goods/materials value was sufficient. The extended limitation period invocation was improper as there was no evidence of willful suppression or intent to evade duty, particularly when previous audits were conducted and returns filed regularly. The demand for differential service tax and penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769199