https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772900 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant study centre was not entitled to various service tax exemptions under notifications dated 20.06.2003, 25.04.2011, 20.06.2012, and 11.07.2014 for commercial training services, as students directly paid fees to appellant rather than through universities. However, tribunal found extended limitation period under section 73(1) of Finance Act could not be invoked as suppression of facts must be wilful with intent to evade tax, following Supreme Court precedent in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals. Demand for extended period (April 2010 to 12.04.2014) was set aside, but demand for normal limitation period was confirmed. Matter remitted to Commissioner to determine exact demand within normal period and applicable penalties. Appeal allowed in part. en-us Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:38:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772900 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant study centre was not entitled to various service tax exemptions under notifications dated 20.06.2003, 25.04.2011, 20.06.2012, and 11.07.2014 for commercial training services, as students directly paid fees to appellant rather than through universities. However, tribunal found extended limitation period under section 73(1) of Finance Act could not be invoked as suppression of facts must be wilful with intent to evade tax, following Supreme Court precedent in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals. Demand for extended period (April 2010 to 12.04.2014) was set aside, but demand for normal limitation period was confirmed. Matter remitted to Commissioner to determine exact demand within normal period and applicable penalties. Appeal allowed in part. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772900