https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780660 CESTAT, Allahabad allowed the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the tax demand on merits, finding that after the 2006 Rule 5 amendment the disputed expenses could not be deducted for threshold exemption, so the service value was correctly assessed. However, the Tribunal held the Revenue failed to prove suppression with intent to evade tax; a bona fide belief in exemption was plausible given the modest turnover. Consequently the extended period of limitation and related penalty could not be invoked, and the extended-period demand was disallowed. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:03:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780660 CESTAT, Allahabad allowed the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the tax demand on merits, finding that after the 2006 Rule 5 amendment the disputed expenses could not be deducted for threshold exemption, so the service value was correctly assessed. However, the Tribunal held the Revenue failed to prove suppression with intent to evade tax; a bona fide belief in exemption was plausible given the modest turnover. Consequently the extended period of limitation and related penalty could not be invoked, and the extended-period demand was disallowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780660