9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ministry of Commerce & Industry with a mandate to undertake and promote research and other scientific work connected with cement and building materials and also to impart training to skilled and unskilled labour in construction field. They are working no-profit; no loss basis. 3. Inasmuch as the definition of commercial training or coaching service as appearing in Section 65(105)(zzc) referred to only institutes engaged in such training on commercial basis, the appellant was not discharging any service tax liability on the understanding that since it is working on no profit; no loss basis and is not a commercial institute, there is no liability for payment of service tax. However the said definition was amended retrospectively w.e.f. 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffects are given. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the instant case falls within the purview of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, I hold that penalty as proposed in the notice in terms of Section 76, 77 and 78 are not imposable on the assessees and drop further proceedings. 5. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was put to challenge by the appellant before the Commissioner(Appeals). No appeal was filed by the Revenue against the said part of the order vide which the penalties were not imposed. However Commissioner(Appeals), on his own, issued notice to the appellant calling upon them to show-cause as to why penalties should not be imposed upon them. While passing the final order, Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmation of demand on the point of limitation by submitting that everything was known to the Revenue inasmuch as the appellant was paying service tax w.e.f. 01/04/2010 as also by drawing our attention to the correspondence entered into between the appellant and the Revenue in the year 2005, it stands pleaded that there cannot be any suppression on the part of the assessee, so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. Learned advocate has also submitted that in case of retrospective amendments, extended limitation of 5 years has been held to be inapplicable. For reference, he draws our attention to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Morarji Goculdas B&W Co. Ltd. Vs. UOI [1996(83) ELT 259 (SC)] and he also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
