https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774006 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand on "other expenses" including foreign trainer salaries. The tribunal held that the department failed to prove these amounts constituted consideration for services or identify specific service providers, with the burden of proving taxability remaining on the department. The tribunal found no suppression of facts as the appellant maintained proper books of accounts and filed regular returns, making invocation of extended limitation period unjustified. The demand was unsustainable due to unclear service classification and lack of evidence establishing service provider-recipient relationship. en-us Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:42:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774006 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand on "other expenses" including foreign trainer salaries. The tribunal held that the department failed to prove these amounts constituted consideration for services or identify specific service providers, with the burden of proving taxability remaining on the department. The tribunal found no suppression of facts as the appellant maintained proper books of accounts and filed regular returns, making invocation of extended limitation period unjustified. The demand was unsustainable due to unclear service classification and lack of evidence establishing service provider-recipient relationship. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774006