2011 (1) TMI 79 - AT - Service Tax

Demand and penalty - Services of commercial training and coaching and collected fees from the students during the period from May 2003 and June 2003 towards the coaching - Such services were to be under the Service Tax net with effect from 1.7.2003 - Revenue entertained a view that though the fee was collected prior to 1.7.2003, the coaching service was actually provided after the said period and as such the respondent is to pay Service Tax on pro-rata basis Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have followed the earlier order in the case of M/s SachdevaNewP.T.College - Tribunal having decided the issue in respect of same parties, Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to follow the said order in stead of his own earlier order in some other case - no merit in the appeal of the Revenue, rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding Service Tax on commercial training and coaching services.
2. Dispute over the date of provision of coaching services for taxation purposes.
3. Grounds of appeal based on limitation and precedents.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi arose from a dispute regarding the imposition of Service Tax on commercial training and coaching services provided by the respondents. The Revenue contended that although fees were collected prior to the effective date of Service Tax, the coaching services were rendered post that date, necessitating taxation on a pro-rata basis from 1.7.2003. The original adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs.21,933, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on both merits and limitation grounds.

2. The Tribunal, led by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, decided to address the appeal solely on the issue of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a previous Tribunal decision involving the same appellant's unit in Vadodara to rule in favor of the respondent. The Revenue, in their appeal, argued that a different precedent involving M/sSachdevaNewP.T.College should have been followed. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that when the same parties are involved, the Commissioner (Appeals) is bound to adhere to the Tribunal's earlier decision, rather than his own previous rulings in different cases.

3. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of consistency in applying legal precedents, especially when the same parties are concerned. By rejecting the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the principle that decisions regarding taxation matters should be guided by established precedents, ensuring fairness and uniformity in the application of tax laws. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of legal consistency and adherence to prior rulings in maintaining the integrity of the tax system.