2020 (12) TMI 1016 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial Coaching or Training service - the contention of the Appellant/Applicant that the retrospective amendment in the definition of Section 65(105)(zzc) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 without a validation clause would not affect pending proceedings, was rejected - time limitation - HELD THAT - The clarification sought for by the Appellant/Applicant in the Miscellaneous Applications is wholly unnecessary for the reason that on a bare perusal of Para 8 and 9 of the Final order alongwith Para 12 and 13 thereof, it is amply clear that the Service Tax demand of ₹ 19,02,103/- on reimbursable expenses for the period of October, 2001 to March 2006 is already set aside and further in respect of Service Tax demand of ₹ 78,12,418/- for the period of 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2008 under the category of Commercial Coaching or Training service, the appellant is extended the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 and Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.04.2004. Further, on limitation it is held that demand upto March, 2006 is barred by normal period of limitation. When the tax demand for the entire period in dispute has already been set aside and benefit of exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 and Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.04.2004 has been extended on merits, no demand survives and while dealing with the contentions of the Appellant/Applicant, on points of limitation, it has been held that demand upto March, 2006 is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Clarification sought on the Final Order dated 24.12.2019 regarding service tax demand on reimbursable expenses and exemption under Notifications No. 9/2003-ST and No. 24/2004-ST, and the impact of retrospective amendment in Section 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act, 1994 without a validation clause.

Analysis:
The Appellant/Applicant filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking clarification on the Final Order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. ST/137 of 2008 & ST/17/2011. The Appellant contended that the service tax demand of ?19,02,103/- on reimbursable expenses for the period October 2001 to March 2006 was set aside in Para 8 of the final order, citing judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Additionally, the Tribunal extended the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST and No. 24/2004-ST for other service tax demands. The Appellant argued that the retrospective amendment in Section 65(105)(zzc) without a validation clause should not affect pending proceedings, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation was not applicable and set aside the demand up to March 2006 based on the contentions presented.

The Department's Authorized Representative contended that the Tribunal had rejected the Appellant's argument that the retrospective amendment in Section 65(105)(zzc) would not affect the case due to the absence of a validation clause. The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments through video conferencing and reviewed the appeal records and Miscellaneous Applications. The Tribunal concluded that the clarification sought by the Appellant was unnecessary as the Final Order clearly addressed the service tax demands and exemptions under the relevant notifications. The Tribunal confirmed that the service tax demands and exemptions were appropriately dealt with in the Final Order, and no confusion existed in the judgment delivered.

In the final decision, the Tribunal disposed of the Miscellaneous Applications according to the terms discussed in the judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that the service tax demand on reimbursable expenses and other demands had been addressed, exemptions were granted, and limitations were applied as per the merits of the case. The judgment was pronounced on 1st December 2020 by the Tribunal comprising Shri P. K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial), and Shri P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical).