9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax of Rs. 7,79,53,322/- after appropriating the sum of Rs. 3,69,749/- paid by the petitioner company during the course of investigation, besides leving a penalty of Rs. 7,79,53,322/-. 2. The petitioner is managing the Academy of Maritime Education and Training Trust in Chennai imparting training to the students in various activities such as Higher National Diploma (HND) Courses in Nautical Science and Marine Engineering and also also conducting short term courses in Oil Pollution and REsponse Course, Fire Prevention and Fire Fighting Course, Personal Survival Technique Course, Tanker Familiarization Course, Personal Safety and Social REsponsibility Course for sea men and students. During the course of such activities, the Additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attended personal hearing on 26.02.2013 and on the same day they have submitted a written submission. While so, the impugned order came to be passed nearly after 11 months from the date on which the petitioner attended the personal hearing. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Circular dated 05.08.2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, wherein it was directed that in all such cases where personal hearing have been concluded, it is necessary to communicate the decision immediately or within a reasonable time of 5 days. Where, for certain reasons, the above time limit cannot be adhered to in a particular case, the order should be issued within 15 days or at most one month from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or establishment which is excluded by specific and legislated exclusionary clause would alone be outside the fold of the taxable activity. In this case, the courses offered by the petitioner would qualify for exemption under vocational training for the period from 2007-2008 to 27.02.2010. Therefore, the respondent ought to have considered the said decision of the Tribunal before assessing the liability of the petitoiner for payment of service tax. In fact, the department preferred an appeal as against the decision of the Tribunal before the Delhi High Court and it was dismissed. In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the delay in passing the order, which is impugned in this writ petition, renders the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with a show cause notice on 01.10.2012, a personal hearing was given to the petitioner on 26.02.2013, on which date, the petitioner submitted his written submissions putting forward his objections for levying service tax. Thereafter, nothing was heard from the respondent. While so, the impugned order came to be passed after 11 months from the date of personal hearing given to the petitioner and therefore, the delay would render the impugned order invalid. The learned counsel for the petitoiner also relied on the Circular dated 05.08.2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi wherein directions have been given to the effect that in cases where personal hearing have been concluded, the copy of the order has to be commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r society or similar other organisation under law for the time being in force and carrying on its activity, with or without profit motive. In view of the said order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be considered at this stage. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., reported in 2008 (230) ELT 385 (SC) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that if a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the student cannot get any employment or engage in self-employment, without clearing the examination conducted by the DGCA. Since the appellant is a charitable institution, can they be considered as a commercial training or coaching centre. Here again the answer is negative. So long as the appellant imparts training or skill in any subject or field other than sports for a consideration, the said activity would come under the purview of commercial training or coaching . It is on record that the appellant is collecting substantial amjount of fees from the students for impartikng training. Merely because the appellant is registered as a Charitable Institution under the Income Tax Act, 1961, that does not entitle the appellant to claim exclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
