9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 65,802, arrived on reconciliation of Balance Sheet and ST-3 returns. The appellants however have paid Rs 65,802 with interest on 28.8.2009. Accordingly, it appeared to the Revenue that the appellant was required to pay Service tax of Rs 24, 21 676. A show cause notice dated 22nd October 2009 was issued to the appellants demanding service tax along with interest and penalties. The original authority vide order dated 27th October 2010, dropped the demand of Rs 18,32,583(for the period 10.09.2004 to 15.06.2005); confirmed a demand of Rs.3,94,047 (for the period 1.7.2004-09.09.2004) and a demand of Rs. 1,29,244 (for the advances received as on 1.7.2004) along with interest and penalties while confirming and appropriating Rs 65,802 paid by the appellants. 2. Both the Revenue and the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of demands dropped and confirmed respectively. Learned Commissioner (Appeals, vide impugned order dated 5th November 2012, allowed the appeal filed by Revenue relying of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunwin Technosolution Pvt Ltd 2011(21) STR 97(SC) and partly allowed the appeal of the appellant by setting aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC)] Rukmani Pakkwell Traders - 2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC) Sunder Steels Ltd. - 2005 (181) ELT 154 (SC) TISCO Ltd. - (1978) 1 ELT J61 Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaeuticals Ltd. - [Order No.A/668/WZB/2004-C-II dated 20.08.2004] MRF Ltd. - 2005 (179) ELT 472 (Tri. Mad.) Yokogawa Blue Star Ltd. - 2005 (186) ELT 601 (Tri.) Leela Jain - AIR 1965 SC 1296 Kush Saigal - (2000) 4 SCC 526 Star Neon Singh Vs. Commissioner [2002 (141) ELT 770 (Tri- Del.)] Flyingman Air Courier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2004 (170) ELT 417 (Tri-Del)) ETA Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2004 (174) ELT 19 (Tri-LB)] Hindustan Steel Ltd. - 1978 (2) ELT J 159 (SC) Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC): CIT v. Khoday Eswara & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC); CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC); Cement Marketing Co. of India v. Assistant Commissioner of SalesTax 1980 (6) ELT 295 (SC) EID Pary (1) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes AIR 2000 (SC) 551 Sunwin Technosolutions Pvt Ltd v. CCE, Ranchi 2007 (7) STR 700(Tri-Kol) Doon Institute of Information Technology Pvt Ltd v. CCE, Meerut - 12008 (05) LCX 0308 (CESTAT-Delhi Uttara (Training, software and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Espn Software India (P) Ltd. Versus Commr. of Service Tax, New Delhi - 2014 (35) S.T.R. 927 (Tri. - Del.) 6. Regarding the issue of limitation Learned Authorized Representative submits that the appellants did not get themselves registered even though the service rendered by them was taxable from 1/7/2003 and CBEC issued circular no. 65/14/2003 dated 5/11/2003; even when the exemption under notification no. 9/2003-ST dated 20/6/2003 was amended with effect from 30/6/2004; they did not comply with the various summonses; Shri Rajesh Vaidya, Partner of the appellant, accepted that though exemption was not available after 1/7/2004, they registered themselves on 22/7/2005 ; they did not pay Service Tax even after 1/7/2004 till 10/9/2004; they did not pay Service Tax correctly even after the issuance of notification no. 19/2005 dated 7/6/2005 ; they deposited the differential tax of Rs. 65,802/- on 28/8/2009 after investigation started. He relies on the following cases and submits that extended period is correctly invoked. Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust 2018 (363) E.L.T. 144 (Tri. Del.) Aircel Digilink India Ltd 2006 (3) STR 386 (Tri.- Del.) Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board 1984 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Government thought it fit to make it abundantly clear by issuing the said notification. The liability. so far as the respondent is concerned, to pay the service tax between the period 10-9-2004 to 15-6-2005, therefore subsisted " 9. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that there is no doubt as to the taxability of Computer Coaching and Training Institutes during the period 10.09.2004 to 15.06.2005. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the legislative intent behind the Notification in no uncertain terms. This being so, we are not inclined to buy the argument of the appellants that while interpreting the notification, intention of the government is not required to be ascertained; an amendment cannot confirm a retrospective applicability and create a liability which did not exists before. In the case cited above, Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the very same issue being agitated by the appellant. Therefore, reliance on other cases is of no avail. We find that the Appellants have not made out any case as far as the merits of the case are concerned. 10. Coming to the issue of Limitation, we find that the appellants argue on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
