2012 (4) TMI 105 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - Classification - The issue involved in this case is regarding discharge of Service Tax liability on the appellant as a society which imparts training for the candidates and collects the fees from them as charges and not discharging the Service Tax liability - Held that the issue involved in this case is to be considered from the factual matrix as to whether there was any suppression of facts on the part of the assessee - the issue involved in this case is to be considered from the factual matrix as to whether there was any suppression of facts on the part of the assessee - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of direction to deposit Rs.50 000 within a period of 4 weeks from today and report compliance on 14.02.2012

Summary

Issues involved: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax demand, interest, and penalties under Sections 77, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 based on the discharge of Service Tax liability by a society providing training services.

Analysis:
The appellant sought the waiver of pre-deposit of an amount confirmed as Service Tax demand, interest, and penalties. The issue revolved around the discharge of Service Tax liability by the appellant society, which provided training services to candidates and collected fees from them. The appellant argued that they were a non-profitable organization and had been performing as per prevailing case laws during the relevant period. The Commissioner, as a revisionary authority, revised the Order-in-Original considering a retrospective amendment to the definition of Commercial coaching and Training Services, leading to the confirmation of the demand. The appellant raised a plea of limitation during the relevant period, claiming that the demand was barred by limitation. Additionally, the appellant contended that the fees collected were not a consideration but a reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred for providing snacks and tea. On the other hand, the Revenue argued based on a decision from a co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in a similar situation. The Tribunal considered whether there was any suppression of facts by the appellant and whether the training provided fell under the category of Commercial Coaching services. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a certain amount within a specified period and stay the recovery of the balance amount pending the appeal's disposal, subject to compliance being reported.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering the factual matrix and retrospective amendments in determining Service Tax liability. It also emphasizes the need to assess whether there was any suppression of facts and whether the services provided fall under the relevant category. The decision to waive pre-deposit and stay recovery pending appeal demonstrates the Tribunal's balanced approach in ensuring compliance while providing relief to the appellant.