https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782083 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, holding that service tax demand on consultancy services classified as "Management or Business Consultants Service" was unsustainable since this category was never proposed in the SCN. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority itself accepted the service was not "Business Auxiliary Service" and that the demand arose from audit of recorded transactions, not from suppression. As there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade, invocation of the extended limitation period beyond 18 months was invalid. Consequently, the demand beyond the normal period, along with corresponding interest and penalties, was quashed. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782083 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, holding that service tax demand on consultancy services classified as "Management or Business Consultants Service" was unsustainable since this category was never proposed in the SCN. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority itself accepted the service was not "Business Auxiliary Service" and that the demand arose from audit of recorded transactions, not from suppression. As there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade, invocation of the extended limitation period beyond 18 months was invalid. Consequently, the demand beyond the normal period, along with corresponding interest and penalties, was quashed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782083