2012 (11) TMI 368 - AT - Service Tax

waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of ₹ 3,58,38,984/- along with interest - Commercial Training and Coaching Services - The appellant contended that as per Service Tax vide letter dated 7.12.2006 clarified by the department that the applicant are not covered under Commercial Training for the purpose of levy of Service and extended period of limitation is not invokable. Held that - Pre-deposit of the entire amount of service tax along with interest has been waived during the pendency of the appeal - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax under the category of "Commercial Training and Coaching Services".

Analysis:
The case involved the applicants, a renowned institute in the banking and finance sector, seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs.3,58,38,984/- along with interest confirmed against them for providing services categorized as "Commercial Training and Coaching Services". The institute, established by the Reserve Bank of India, engaged in research, training, consultancy, and publication activities, received a show-cause notice for service tax demand covering the period from 1.10.2003 to 30.09.2008. The institute had sought clarification from the department regarding the applicability of service tax on their activities, and based on the department's response, they believed they were not liable for service tax under the category of "Commercial Training." However, the department contended that the institute's activities fell under taxable services and invoked the extended period for demand based on a clarification from the Board in 2005.

Upon considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the demand for the specified period had been confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation. However, a crucial letter from the Commissioner of Central Excise in 2006 had stated that the institute's activities did not fall under the scope of "Commercial Training" for service tax levy, as the fees charged were lower compared to similar programs offered by other institutions not liable for service tax. Additionally, the institute had also sought clarification from the Board in 2005, indicating that the department was aware of the nature of the institute's activities. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this case, and the institute had a prima facie case for waiver of the pre-deposit of the entire service tax amount and interest during the appeal's pendency.

Therefore, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit of the entire service tax amount and interest, providing relief to the institute pending the appeal process.