2022 (10) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant are franchisee of SITD and the service was also provided to the students by the SITD, therefore the appellant are providing service under the brand name of another person. Therefore, they are not eligible for small scale exemption. The appellant also raised a point that they are eligible for exemption on the vo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in four years, they are eligible for small scale exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST. Thus, the issue was also involved an interpretation of notification. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant have not hidden the transaction which was retrieved from their record. Considering the overall facts, the demand for extended period is not sustainable. Consequently, the penalty under section78 is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a Society for Information Technology Development (SITD) having registered office at Kannur, Kerala for providing Computer Teachers Training course, Computerised Professional Accounting course and Wi-Fi net-working. Since the appellant have provided the service with the brand name of SITD, they are not eligible for small scale exemption available under the Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re franchisee of SITD and the service was also provided to the students by the SITD, therefore the appellant are providing service under the brand name of another person. Therefore, they are not eligible for small scale exemption. The appellant also raised a point that they are eligible for exemption on the vocational training service. In this regard we find that Computer Education service has bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Notification No. 6/2005-ST. Thus, the issue was also involved an interpretation of notification. The appellant have not hidden the transaction which was retrieved from their record. Considering the overall facts, we are of the view that demand for extended period is not sustainable. Consequently, the penalty under section78 is also not imposable. 5. As a result we hold that appellant is liable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X