9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Appellant. Ravi Raghavan for the Respondent. [Order per : P.K. Das, Judicial Member.]. - Both the appeals arise from a common order and, therefore, both are taken up together f or decision. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. P.T. Education & Training Service Ltd. (in short, "the assessee") has been providing the services of coaching centre. Service Tax was introdu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee filed appeal against the impugned order insofar as the demand of tax of Rs. 71,297 and penalty. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Krishna Coaching Institute [2009] 19 STT 486 (New Delhi- CESTAT). The relevant portion of the said decision is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice indicating the service charges (noting that the amount already stands paid) and indicating service tax payable. 6.7 As the services have been actually rendered prior to 1-7-2003, the payment received earlier does not make it as service charges attributable to services rendered prior to 1-7-2003. Therefore, service tax is payable. To that extent the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of tax on merit as confirmed by the original authority. However, we agree with the submission of the ld. Advocate that the case relates to interpretation of law. Therefore, penalty is not warranted. Accordingly, penalties are set aside. We also direct the Original Authority to re-determine the demand of tax by extending-cum-tax benefit. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
