9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (3) TMI 198 - AT - Service TaxPeriod of Limitation - Coaching and Training classes - demand imposed on advance fees collected during the period April 2003 to June 2003 - Service Tax liability on Commercial & Training Classes introduced from 01.07.2003 SCN issued on 28.06.2005 Held that - During the relevant period, there was confusion as regards the leviability of amount collected in advance as Board s circular dt.1.7.2003 had clarified that no Service Tax liability arises on advance payment received, while the Board s circular dt.05.11.2003 reiterates that Service Tax paid on such advance amounts. In such a confused situation, we find that there cannot be any allegation of suppression of the facts on the appellant. Therefore, Demand imposed by issuing the SCN in 2005 seems to be hit by limitation. See CAIIT JEE (CAT JEE) Vs CCE Allahabad (2009 - TMI - 32715 - CESTAT, New Delhi), Noble Institute (Education) Pvt.Ltd. Vs CST Ahmedabad 2008 (2008 - TMI - 4275 - CESTAT, Ahmedabad) Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
Service Tax liability on advance fees collected from students during April 2003 to June 2003. Question of limitation regarding the Show Cause Notice issued in 2005. Analysis: The appeal was against an Order-in-Appeal confirming Service Tax liability on advance fees collected by the appellant from students during April 2003 to June 2003. The Revenue authorities argued that the appellant should discharge Service Tax liability on a pro-rata basis for the mentioned period. The first appellate authority upheld the order, leading to this appeal. The appellant's counsel raised the issue of limitation, citing a Tribunal judgment in a similar case. The Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice issued in 2005 for the period in question was hit by limitation. The confusion regarding the leviability of Service Tax on advance payments during the relevant period was noted, with conflicting Board circulars adding to the ambiguity. The Tribunal concluded that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant and referenced judgments supporting the appellant's position on limitation. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, observed that the appellant had indeed collected fees in advance during the period in question. It was acknowledged that the appellant had been discharging Service Tax liability from July 1, 2003, under the relevant category. The Tribunal found that the demand confirmed by the lower authority for the period in question seemed to be time-barred due to the Show Cause Notice being issued in 2005. The Tribunal highlighted the confusion surrounding the leviability of Service Tax on advance payments during the period, noting conflicting Board circulars. It was emphasized that in such a confused situation, there could be no allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant. The Tribunal relied on judgments cited by the appellant's counsel to support the decision on limitation in favor of the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order solely on the ground of limitation and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|
