2018 (9) TMI 1376 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial Coaching Or Training Services - training to the employees of member Banks and also to the employees of other Banks - extended period of limitation - Held that - Identical issue decided in the case of M/S NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BANKING STUDIES CORPORATE MANAGEMENT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, NOIDA AND VICE-VERSA 2018 (7) TMI 1290 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , where the demand falling behind the normal period of limitation is set aside along with setting aside of penalty and the matter is remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of the demand falling within the limitation period - demand upehld for normal period. Penalty - Held that - In the light of the divergent views during the relevant period, it has been held that the appellant cannot be held guilty of any suppression of mistatement and the penalty stands set aside. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's training services fall under the category of "Commercial Coaching Or Training"?
2. Validity of the demand of duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant.
3. Consideration of mutuality of interest in the larger Bench decision.
4. Application of the limitation period in confirming the demand.
5. Imposition and setting aside of penalties on the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a society jointly promoted by four Banks, provides training to employees of member Banks and other Banks in banking. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant, considering the services as "Commercial Coaching Or Training" taxable under Section 65(105)(zzc). The Commissioner confirmed a demand of duty, interest, and penalties. The appellant, being a Non-Profit Organization, challenged the decision.

2. The original adjudicating authority's decision was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals), leading to the present appeal. The appellant's representative acknowledged a larger Bench decision against them but argued that mutuality of interest was not considered. The Tribunal, in a previous order, upheld the demand within the limitation period and remanded for re-calculation. The demand in the present case was found within the normal limitation period, leading to the confirmation of demand.

3. Regarding penalties, the Tribunal set aside penalties in the earlier decision due to the issue being unclear during that period. The appellant was not held guilty of suppression or misstatement, and penalties were set aside. Following the earlier decision, the Tribunal confirmed the demand but set aside the penalties imposed under all sections, disposing of the appeal accordingly.

4. The Tribunal's decision considered the appellant's training services, the application of the limitation period, and the imposition and setting aside of penalties. The judgment upheld the demand within the normal limitation period, considering the earlier decisions and the lack of clarity during the relevant period regarding penalties. The appellant's appeal was disposed of based on these considerations.