https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769662 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant's activity of selling and purchasing postal stamps through franking machines constituted trading of postal stamps, which is covered under negative list sub-clause (e) of Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994, making it non-taxable. The certificate from postal authorities carried presumption of correctness, which the department failed to rebut. The tribunal also found that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked as the activity was not taxable service, and non-filing of ST-3 returns could not constitute suppression. The show cause notice was deemed vague, being based solely on third party information. Appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Apr 2025 08:37:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769662 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant's activity of selling and purchasing postal stamps through franking machines constituted trading of postal stamps, which is covered under negative list sub-clause (e) of Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994, making it non-taxable. The certificate from postal authorities carried presumption of correctness, which the department failed to rebut. The tribunal also found that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked as the activity was not taxable service, and non-filing of ST-3 returns could not constitute suppression. The show cause notice was deemed vague, being based solely on third party information. Appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769662