2017 (4) TMI 335 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of SCN - extended period of limitation - N/N. 24/2004 dated 10/09/2004 - exemption to computer training institutes - Held that - the computer training institutes, no longer enjoy exemption with effect from 01/07/2004 or 10/09/2004 when exemption was specifically continued only for recreational training and vocational training Institute - no case of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty or tax is made out, nor any case of contumacious conduct is made out on the part of the appellant - the extended period of limitation is not attracted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the show cause for an extended period of limitation is tenable.
2. Interpretation of exemption provisions for computer training institutes under various notifications.
3. Applicability of exemption to computer training institutes based on judicial precedents.
4. Assessment of suppression of facts and contumacious conduct in the case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order dated 30/08/2010 by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Meerut-I. The issue revolved around the tenability of the show cause for an extended period of limitation. The appellant was alleged to have not paid service tax on computer training services provided during the period September 2004 to September 2007. The demand, interest, and penalty were contested and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, which led to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that exemption provisions under various notifications, such as Notification No. 9/2003 ST, were applicable to computer training institutes. The exemption was extended through subsequent notifications until Notification No. 24/2004, which was later clarified by Notification No. 19/2005 ST. The Counsel highlighted that computer training institutes were considered eligible for exemption under vocational training institutes based on judicial interpretations, including a Supreme Court judgment dated 13/09/2010. It was emphasized that the issue was interpretational, and there was no suppression or contumacious conduct involved.

3. The Revenue's Assistant Commissioner relied on the impugned order and the allegations in the show cause notice. However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found that there was no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty or tax, nor any contumacious conduct on the appellant's part. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable. As a result, the impugned demand, interest, and penalties were set aside, and the appellant was entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key issues addressed, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of exemption provisions and the absence of suppression or contumacious conduct in the case.