9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax net w.e.f. 1/7/2003 only. I find that the appellant got himself registered and started making statutory compliances by depositing the taxes and filing the ST-3 Returns. The only issue in dispute was regarding the amount of fees collected/received for the period prior to 1st July, 2003 for which services were to be provided at a later date. The said advance fees were collected prior to 01/07/2003. It is seen that initially, there was a Board’s circular to the effect that such collection of fees prior to 01/07/2003, though for the services to be rendered after the said date would not get included in the value of the services. Subsequently, the Board issued another circular dated 05/11/2003, clarifying that since services were provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 003 onwards. A letter dated 3/2/2005 was received by the appellant mentioning that amounts received in advance prior to 1/7/2003 were also liable to Service Tax. After due process of law, the differential amount of tax paid alongwith interest was confirmed and appropriated and penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Act was imposed. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Shri K.K. Banerjee (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee submits that there was no occasion to issue the show cause notice since the fact of payment of entire amount of tax alongwith interest, as ascertained, was informed vide letter dated 14/5/2006 to the Jurisdictional Superin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te (Education) Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Commr. of Service Tax, Ahmedabad-2008 (10) S.T.R. 374 (Tri.-Ahmedabad) CAIIT JEE (CAT JEE) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Allahabad-2010 (17) S.T.R. 391 (Tri.-Del.) PT Education Training Services Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Vadodara-I-2008 (12) S.T.R. 582 (Tri.-Ahmedabad) He also filed copy of Board s Circular No. 59/8/2003-S.T. dated 20 June, 2003. 3. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the discussions and findings of the lower adjudicating authority and argued that the appellant failed to correctly report the value of taxable service in the ST-3 Returns and also failed to pay Service Tax thereon. For contravention of provisions of Section 68 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 and 7 of the Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
