9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 to 30.9.2007 provided computer training service and had not paid the appropriate tax, is that the demand is barred by limitation. The contention is that under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 the computer training institutes were exempted from payment of service tax and thereafter another Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 was issued whereby the exemption from payment of service tax is granted to the vocational training institutes, computer training institute or recreational training institutes. The appellant were under the bona fide belief that the computer training is also entitled for benefit of Notification No. 24/2004-ST. This Notification was further amended by Notification No. 19/2005-ST dated 7.6.2005 whereby the Commercial Training or Coaching by computer training institutes are specifically excluded from the Notification. During this period there are following decisions of the Tribunal, whereby the benefit of exemption was extended upto 7.6.2005: (a) Gargi Consultants Pvt Ltd - 2013 (32) STYR 654; (b) Doon Institute of Information Tech Pvt Ltd 2008 (12) STR 459; (c) Ultra (Training Software & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, temporarily or otherwise, to a client is covered under the scope of Service Tax as Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency. The appellant's contention is that prior to 16.6.2005 the appellants are not covered under the definition of Manpower Recruitment Agency Service. The appellants are only providing manpower to various software companies for development of software as required. Therefore it is only the activity of supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, hence the appellants are not liable to pay service tax prior to 16.6.2005 in this regard. Appellants rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in CST, Ahmedabad vs Azur Cyber Pvt Ltd - reported in 2009 (13) STR 294 andMehta Security & Detective Services vs CCE, Jaipur - reported in 2007 (7) STR 287. 7. In respect of the other two demands which are confirmed on the ground that the appellant provided Intellectual Property Service and Business Support Service, the contention is that the appellant had not provided such service. 8. In respect of Intellectual Property Service the contention of the appellant is that it is only a franchisee service. In respect of the demand of Business Support Service, the contention is that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 was issued whereby the exemption payment of service tax is only in respect of recreational institute. Thereafter another Notification No. 19/2005-ST dated 7.6.2005 was issued whereby commercial training or coaching by computer training institutes are specifically excluded from the scope of Notification NO. 24/2004-ST. The dispute regarding the benefit of Notification No. 24/2004-ST in respect of computer training institute came before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the case of Sunwin Technosolutions (supra) held that vocational training institute including computer training institutes are exempted from service tax in terms of Notification No. 24/2004-ST till computer training institutes were excluded from exemption under Notification NO. 24/2004-ST with effect from 16.6.2005 by Notification NO. 19/2005-ST dated 7.6.2005. Revenue filed appeal against the decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Tribunal and held that Notification No. 19/2005-ST is form the date of Notification No. 24/2004-ST i.e. from 10.9.2004. During this period the appellant filed a declaration under the Extra Ordina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequential relief to the appellant." 17. In these circumstances the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sunwin Technosolutions (supra) was in favour of the assessee and it was subsequently set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. 18. In respect of demand which is confirmed on Manpower Recruitment we find that the appellants are only providing manpower to the software company when required. Prior to 16.6.2005 the definition of manpower recruitment agency as provided under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 covers service provided to client by Manpower Recruitment Agency in relation to recruitment of manpower. The appellants are not providing any such activity in respect of recruitment of manpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
