9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 346 - AT - Service TaxExtended period of limitation - Commercial training or coaching services - computer training institute - exemption Notification No. 24/2004-ST - Held that - the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sunwin Technosolution 2007 (6) TMI 34 - CESTAT, KOLKATA was in favour of the assessee and it was subsequently set aside by the Hon ble Supreme Court 2010 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and in view of the fact that the appellant wrote a letter regarding their activity and sought advice, we find merit in the contention that the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable in respect of demand which is confirmed in respect of computer training. The demand beyond the normal period of limitation is set aside. - As we are setting aside the demand beyond the normal of limitation, therefore penalty is also set aside in this regard. - Decided in favor of assessee. Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - Held that - The appellants are providing their employees to various companies temporarily. Therefore, appellants are liable to pay service tax with effect from 16.6.2005 - The demand prior to 16.6.2005 is set aside - Decided partly in favor of assessee. Intellectual Property Service - Held that - admittedly the fact is that the appellants have the property right over a software which they allowed to be used by their clients. - demand within limitation confirmed with penalties - Decided against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Demand for service tax on computer training services. 2. Demand for service tax on manpower recruitment and supply agency services. 3. Demand for service tax on intellectual property services. 4. Demand for service tax on business support services. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Demand for Service Tax on Computer Training Services: The appellant contended that the demand for service tax on computer training services, amounting to Rs. 4,56,86,059/-, was barred by limitation. They argued that under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003, computer training institutes were exempt from service tax, and this exemption was extended by Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004. The appellant believed they were entitled to this exemption until Notification No. 19/2005-ST dated 7.6.2005 explicitly excluded commercial training or coaching by computer training institutes from the exemption. The Tribunal in several cases, including Sunwin Technosolution Pvt Ltd, had initially upheld this exemption until 7.6.2005, but the Supreme Court later ruled that the exclusion applied from 10.9.2004. The appellant also cited their compliance under the Extra Ordinary Taxpayers Friendly Scheme and their communication with the Revenue seeking clarification on their tax obligations. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention, noting the absence of suppression with intent to evade tax and set aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation, along with the associated penalty. 2. Demand for Service Tax on Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services: The appellant contested the demand of Rs. 36,83,790/- for manpower recruitment and supply agency services, arguing that prior to 16.6.2005, the definition under Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994, did not cover their activities. They provided manpower to software companies for development purposes, which did not constitute recruitment of manpower. The Tribunal agreed, referencing the amendment on 16.6.2005 that expanded the definition to include supply of manpower. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand for the period before 16.6.2005 and reduced the penalty proportionately. 3. Demand for Service Tax on Intellectual Property Services: The appellant argued that the service they provided was franchisee service, not intellectual property service. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant allowed clients to use their software, which constituted intellectual property service under Section 65(55a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's position, confirming the demand and penalties within the limitation period, as the appellant's software usage rights fell under intellectual property service. 4. Demand for Service Tax on Business Support Services: The appellant claimed they did not provide business support services but merely offered infrastructure for examinations and conferences. The Revenue argued that providing space for such activities fell under business support services. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, confirming the demand, interest, and penalties, as the appellant's activities clearly constituted business support services. Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by setting aside the demand and penalties related to computer training services beyond the normal limitation period and reducing the penalty for manpower recruitment and supply agency services to reflect the period after 16.6.2005. The demands and penalties for intellectual property services and business support services were upheld.
|
