2007 (10) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Kumaresh ORDER P. G. Chacko (Judicial Member) The lower authority has demanded service tax of over ₹ 1.40 crores from the appellants for the period April 2004 to July 2006 by treating them as a commercial training or coaching centre under section 65(27 ) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants, a company working in terms of section 25 of the Companies Act, provided coachin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tivity of coaching students against fees would merit consideration as a commercial activity. It is the appellant s case that, as they were not applying their profits to any purpose other than their own infrastructural and other developments, they could not be called a commercial coaching centre and, for that matter, their activity could not be termed commercial . This argument has been reject .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X