https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770216 CESTAT Ahmedabad upheld classification of appellant's activities as Business Auxiliary Service rather than Business Support Service. Appellant engaged in commission-based old car transactions, arranged financing as bank DSA, and handled RTO documentation. Despite appellant's reliance on Pagariya Auto Center case, tribunal found activities clearly fell under Business Auxiliary Service scope per Section 65 Finance Act 1994. Extended limitation period properly invoked due to fact suppression and lack of bona fide belief. Commissioner Appeals order sustained on merits and limitation grounds. Appeal dismissed. en-us Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 May 2025 09:13:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770216 CESTAT Ahmedabad upheld classification of appellant's activities as Business Auxiliary Service rather than Business Support Service. Appellant engaged in commission-based old car transactions, arranged financing as bank DSA, and handled RTO documentation. Despite appellant's reliance on Pagariya Auto Center case, tribunal found activities clearly fell under Business Auxiliary Service scope per Section 65 Finance Act 1994. Extended limitation period properly invoked due to fact suppression and lack of bona fide belief. Commissioner Appeals order sustained on merits and limitation grounds. Appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770216