9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri K.T. Nagesh, Advocate, for the Appellant, Shri M. Ravi Rajendran, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - These are appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee, M/s. Svenpa Systems against a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangaiore. M/s. Svenpa Systems runs a computer training centre as a franchisee of M/s. Aptech. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner affirmed demand of Service tax of Rs. 2,49,216/- for the period from 1-7-04 to 30-6-05 as well as penalties imposed under Sections 76 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) by the original authority but vacated the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act. Appeal No. ST/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. The training imparted by the assessee under Yuva.com programme, was entitled to this exemption. The appellant had already paid the Service tax due for the period up to the date of issue of the said exemption notification. Confusion had prevailed in the field as to whether the computer training institutes were entitled to exemption granted to vocational training institutes. As the appellant ran the institute for vocational training sponsored by the Govt. of Karnataka and ran a franchise on behalf of Aptech, they provided training collecting the fees prescribed by the Govt. and receiving subsidy granted by the Govt. That the computer training institutes were liable to pay Service tax was clarified only on 16-6-2005, when Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncertainty as to the assessee's liability during the material period, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that it had not deliberately evaded payment of tax, and had discharged the liability soon after the confusion was cleared. He also found that there was no mala fide on the part of the assessee. We find that the assessee's claim that it was entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 24/04-S.T. and was not liable to pay Service tax since 10-9-04 is correct. We also find that the assessee was not liable for penalty under Section 78 of the Act in the absence of any mala fide on their part for any failure occasioned by the uncertainty as to their liabilities. For the same reason as led the Commissioner to waive penalty on the assessee u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
