9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able entry or not. To bring about clarity in the definition of commercial training or coaching centre, an explanation was inserted by Finance Act, 2010 (14 of 2010) dated 08.05.2010 in the definition of the taxable service. The period of dispute involved in this case is from 01.10.2005 to 31.03.2011. On perusal of the explanation clause appended to the definition of taxable service under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching in Section 65 (105)(zzc) ibid and the clarification furnished vide Circular dated 26.02.2010, it transpires that owing to the reason of use of the phrase commercial in the definition of taxable service, there were lot of confusions with regard to payment of service tax under such category of service and even the tax payers also resisted in paying service tax on such ground. Thus, the scope and ambit of the definition was clarified by the Central Government by way of insertion of the explanation clause in Section 65 (105)(zzc) ibid. For the period May 2010 to March 2011, the appellant had collected the service tax from the service recipients, but did not deposit such amount into the Central Government account. The assessee is not empowered unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the educational courses provided by the appellant were not liable to service tax up to 01.05.2011 inasmuch as the appellant s institute is a public charitable trust, established with the objective of not earning any profits and thus, the activities undertaken by it during the disputed period was outside the scope and ambit of the taxable entry under Commercial Training or Coaching Centre. The learned Advocate further submitted that the proceedings initiated by the department are barred by limitation of time and in this context, has relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commr. of Service Tax V/s. Shree Chanakya Education Society, reported in - 2018 (362) E.L.T. 741 (Bom.) and Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Gupta V/s. CESTAT reported in - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 736 (P H). 3. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submitted that as per the explanation clause inserted by Finance Act, 2010 to Section 65(10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f payment of service tax. In the present case, it is an admitted fact on record that for imparting training/coaching, the appellant had received the consideration amount from the students. Therefore, the arguments placed by the appellant that since there is no profit motive in providing the training or coaching service and that the appellant is recognised as a public charitable trust for non-levy of service tax, are not appreciated by us in view of clear and unambiguous explanation contained in the definition clause provided in Rule 65(105)(zzc) ibid. Hence, the impugned order, insofar as it has held that the activity conducted by the Noticee is taxable service under the category of Commercial Training and Coaching cannot be faulted with. 7. The period of dispute involved in this case is from 01.10.2005 to 31.03.2011. On perusal of the explanation clause appended to the definition of taxable service under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching in Section 65 (105)(zzc) ibid and the clarification furnished vide Circular dated 26.02.2010, it transpires that owing to the reason of use of the phrase commercial in the definition of taxable service, there were lot of confu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and Coaching is not chargeable to service tax under the Act. Thus, no fault can be found in the present facts with the impugned order of the Tribunal restricting the demand only to that extent of normal period of limitation and deletion of equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Act. This as the Tribunal found on facts and on the basis of the law that the respondent was under a bona fide belief that no service tax is payable by a charitable institution rendering the service of Commercial Training and Coaching. 8. In the present case, the show cause notice dated 19.04.2011 issued by the department for the period October 2005 to March 2011 to the appellant had invoked the proviso to Section 73(1) ibid, proposing for confirmation and recovery of service tax demand under the extended period of limitation. Since, non-payment of service tax by the appellant was not attributable to the reason of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement etc., the proceedings should have been initiated within the normal period of one year from the relevant date. Thus, the show cause notice issued in this case beyond the normal period is clearly barred by limitation of time. 9. On perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
