2014 (2) TMI 1083 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - Commercial Training or Coaching Service - Quantum of the demand - Liability not disputed - Held that - refunds made by the assessee to their students during the period of dispute were allowed to be excluded from taxable value of service rendered in the preceding half-years. For instance, while calculating the taxable value for the half-year October 2003 to March 2004, the total amount of fees collected from the students for that half-year less refunds made to the students in the succeeding half-year was adopted as taxable value. If that be so, it is incomprehensible from the impugned order as to why the refunds to students in the half-year April 2006 to September 2006 were not allowed to be excluded from the taxable value of the service provided in the previous half-year - Conditional stay granted.

Issues:
1. Dispute over the quantum of service tax demand for the period 2003-04 to 2005-06.
2. Exclusion of refunded fees from taxable value and its impact on the demand.
3. Plea of limitation against a part of the tax demand.
4. Financial hardship plea by the appellant.

Issue 1: Dispute over Quantum of Service Tax Demand
The appellant filed an application seeking waiver and stay regarding the adjudged dues, including service tax, education cess, and penalties. The demand pertains to the period 2003-04 to 2005-06 under the category of 'Commercial Training or Coaching Service.' The dispute lies in the quantum of the demand. The appellant contends that the total tax and cess payable amount to Rs. 66,694, calculated by excluding refunded fees of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to students after March 2006. The appellant argues that if these refunded amounts are excluded from the taxable value, the demand would reduce to Rs. 66,694.

Issue 2: Exclusion of Refunded Fees from Taxable Value
The appellant asserts that the refunds made to students during the disputed period were allowed to be excluded from the taxable value of services rendered in preceding half-years. However, the impugned order fails to justify why refunds made in the half-year April 2006 to September 2006 were not allowed to be excluded from the taxable value of services provided in the previous half-year (October 2005 to March 2006). This inconsistency raises questions regarding the calculation of taxable value and the subsequent demand.

Issue 3: Plea of Limitation
The appellant raised a plea of limitation against a portion of the tax demand, but no prima facie case was found on this ground. The judgment does not elaborate on the specifics of this limitation plea, indicating a lack of substantiation by the appellant. The absence of a strong case on limitation suggests that the demand is not affected by any statutory time constraints.

Issue 4: Financial Hardship Plea
The appellant pleaded financial hardships in the application, but the plea was not substantiated. The judgment mentions that the plea of financial hardships was not supported with sufficient evidence or documentation to demonstrate the claimed financial constraints. As a result, the plea of financial hardship did not influence the decision regarding the pre-deposit requirement and the subsequent waiver and stay of penalties and the remaining tax amount.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses multiple issues related to the disputed service tax demand, the exclusion of refunded fees from taxable value, the plea of limitation, and the appellant's financial hardship claim. The decision mandates the appellant to pre-deposit a specific amount and provides conditions for waiver and stay of penalties based on compliance. The analysis highlights the complexities surrounding the calculation of taxable value and the importance of substantiating claims in tax disputes.

← Previous Next →