2011 (8) TMI 918 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - commercial training or coaching service - Mere failure to obtain registration and pay service tax is not sufficient to hold that the assessees suppressed the rendering of a service - There is no material on record to establish that the assessees had knowledge of the fact that they were rendering a taxable service and yet did not obtain registration and pay service tax - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to register and pay appropriate service tax.
2. Demand of service tax and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority.
3. Appeal by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

Issue 1: Failure to register and pay appropriate service tax
The case involved the audit of the assessee's accounts, revealing that they provided commercial training services related to NCR Cheque Truncation Pilot Project to IBM without registering under the Finance Act, 1994, and without paying service tax from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2008. The demand of Rs. 3,51,410/- was confirmed by the adjudicating authority, along with penalties under the Finance Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the demand was time-barred due to lack of evidence proving intentional suppression by the assessees to evade payment.

Issue 2: Demand of service tax and penalties
The Appellate Tribunal noted that the mere failure to register and pay service tax does not automatically imply suppression of service. The assessees argued that the training provided was not a taxable service but rather software training, which is not taxable. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish suppression, which was not fulfilled in this case. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents to support its decision that failure to register alone is not enough to invoke the extended period of limitation, and deliberate intent to evade payment must be proven.

Issue 3: Appeal by the Revenue
The Revenue appealed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, arguing that the failure to register and pay service tax should be considered suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating that there was no evidence to suggest that the assessees knowingly provided a taxable service without registration and payment of service tax. The Tribunal concluded that not every failure to register and pay service tax amounts to deliberate suppression, and in this case, the burden of proof had not been met by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that the demand for service tax and penalties was time-barred and that there was insufficient evidence to prove deliberate suppression by the assessees.