https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88043 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the demand raised against the appellant was unsustainable. The tribunal found that the appellant qualified as a funded partner of NSDC for skill development programmes, and thus was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The adjudicating authority's rejection based on absence of a partnership certificate was deemed incorrect. The tribunal emphasized that the loan was specifically extended for skill development programmes, and the exemption should be interpreted beneficially, consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance on interpreting beneficial notifications. The demand raised solely on discrepancies between tax returns, without independent investigation, was set aside. en-us Mon, 05 May 2025 08:37:52 +0530 Mon, 05 May 2025 08:37:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88043 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the demand raised against the appellant was unsustainable. The tribunal found that the appellant qualified as a funded partner of NSDC for skill development programmes, and thus was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The adjudicating authority's rejection based on absence of a partnership certificate was deemed incorrect. The tribunal emphasized that the loan was specifically extended for skill development programmes, and the exemption should be interpreted beneficially, consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance on interpreting beneficial notifications. The demand raised solely on discrepancies between tax returns, without independent investigation, was set aside. Highlights Service Tax Mon, 05 May 2025 08:37:52 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88043