TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and arrived at a proper conclusion - The appellant has clearly shown that the services rendered by him would fall under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching Services - ST/291 OF 2007 - 279 OF 2009 - Dated:- 18-3-2009 - T.K. JAYARAMAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER and M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dayananda K. for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander for the Respondent. ORDER T.K. Jayaraman, Technical Member.- This appeal has been filed against the Review Adjudication Order No. 48/2007, dated 11.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. 2. We heard both sides. 3. It was alleged that the appellants are engaged in the business of providing taxable services falling under the category of Manpowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Tax amount of Rs. 15,84,711 received for Manpower Planning and Training should not be demanded under the category of Consulting Engineer Services. 4. The Commissioner has given a finding that during the period from 1999-2000 to 2002-03, there was no taxable services under the category of "Manpower Training or Coaching Services." The above services were brought within the ambit of Service Tax only with effect from 1-7-2003. Therefore, the question of raising a demand on the said services under the above category does not arise. However, he has stated that the demand raised for the above mentioned period is liable to taxable services under the category of Consulting Engineer Services. He has reproduced the CBEC Circular dated 2-7-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice was issued in September 2004 covering the period from 1999-2000 to 2002-03. Longer period has been invoked. The extended period may be invoked only when an assessee has omitted to make return under section 70 or failed to make return under section 70 or failed to disclose wholly or partly facts required for verification of the assessment under section 71. In the present case, the appellant filed the return properly and hence, the question of failure to file the return or question of omitting to file the return under section 70 does not arise. Further, section 73 states that when the assessee had failed to provide information or facts for the assessment under section 71, then the extended period can be invoked. In the present case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the relevant period, the said classification does not exist and hence, based on the Circular, the service of the appellant is classifiable under Consulting Engineer Service. (d) The following decisions of this Bench are relied on, which related to the classification whether training would come under Consulting Engineer Services: (i) Yocogawa Blue Star Ltd. v. CCE 2004 (177) ELT 400 (Bang.-Trib.) The service of erection, commissioning etc. has to be classified under Erection service and not under consulting engineer service. The clarification of the Board was prior to the introduction of the new classification and hence such clarification is not relevant once the proper head of service is introduced. (ii) Waters Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a private limited company and not a partnership firm, even if the service is classified as consulting engineer service, the same is not liable for any service tax during the relevant period. With effect from 1.7.2003, a new classification called "commercial training or coaching centre" has been introduced. The Computer Coaching or Training is completely covered in the above definition of Commercial Training or Coaching Centre and not under the Consulting Engineer. The Board's circular has no power to expand the meaning of any statutory definition. The appellant is also paying the Service Tax in respect of computer training or software training effective from 1-7-2003. This is very clear by way of granting exemption for computer training for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|