2018 (10) TMI 89 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act - Commercial Training and Coaching services - suppression of facts or not - Held that - There are no documentary evidences produced/relied upon by the appellant to refute the charges leveled against it. Since the impugned order has considered both factual and legal issues at length and arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had suppressed the taxable value with intent to evade payment of service tax, such findings cannot be disturbed at this juncture, without proper substantiation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in taxable value shown in ST-3 returns
2. Providing "Commercial Training and Coaching service" without registration
3. Service tax demand confirmation
4. Suppression of taxable values
5. Benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994
6. Invocation of extended period of limitation
7. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 24/2004 - S.T.
8. Non-payment of service tax on "Technical Inspection and Certification" service
9. Confirmation of adjudged demand
10. Lack of documentary evidence to refute charges

Analysis:
1. The appellant, registered for "Technical Testing and Certification Service," faced discrepancies in taxable values shown in ST-3 returns during an audit for the period 2004-05 to 2006-07. Additionally, it was found that the appellant provided "Commercial Training and Coaching service" without proper registration, leading to show cause proceedings and subsequent confirmation of Service Tax demand.

2. The adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax demand under "Commercial Coaching and Training Service" based on the commercial nature of the training provided by the appellant. The training in gemology, not related to sports, involved collecting fees without offering recognized qualifications. The benefit of a specific notification was denied due to the appellant not being a vocational training institute. The extended period of limitation was invoked as the appellant did not disclose providing the service or claim exemptions in ST-3 returns.

3. The impugned order confirmed the service tax demand for "Technical Inspection and Certification" service based on a report reconciling financial figures from Profit and Loss Account and ST-3 returns. Specific findings supported the confirmation of the demand, with the adjudicating authority justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

4. The Tribunal found no documentary evidence presented by the appellant to refute the charges. As the impugned order extensively analyzed factual and legal issues, concluding that the appellant suppressed taxable values to evade service tax payment, the Tribunal upheld the order, emphasizing the need for proper substantiation to challenge the findings.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the impugned order by the Commissioner of Service Tax was free from any infirmity. The decision was based on the detailed consideration of factual and legal aspects, leading to the conclusion that the appellant indeed suppressed taxable values with an intent to evade service tax payment.