Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
π¨ Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
β οΈ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2020 (12) TMI 1016 - AT - Service TaxCommercial Coaching or Training service - the contention of the Appellant/Applicant that the retrospective amendment in the definition of Section 65(105)(zzc) of Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994 without a validation clause would not affect pending proceedings was rejected - time limitation - HELD THAT - The clarification sought for by the Appellant/Applicant in the Miscellaneous Applications is wholly unnecessary for the reason that on a bare perusal of Para 8 and 9 of the Final order alongwith Para 12 and 13 thereof it is amply clear that the Service Tax demand of Rs. 19, 02, 103/- on reimbursable expenses for the period of October 2001 to March 2006 is already set aside and further in respect of Service Tax demand of Rs. 78, 12, 418/- for the period of 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2008 under the category of Commercial Coaching or Training service the appellant is extended the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 and Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.04.2004. Further on limitation it is held that demand upto March 2006 is barred by normal period of limitation. When the tax demand for the entire period in dispute has already been set aside and benefit of exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 and Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.04.2004 has been extended on merits no demand survives and while dealing with the contentions of the Appellant/Applicant on points of limitation it has been held that demand upto March 2006 is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|