9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OIO in short) of the adjudicating authority confirming the demand of Rs.22,67,228/- being the service tax payable from April 2008 to December 2008 under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act along with applicable interest and imposing an equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Act as well as penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in rendering Franchise Service and Commercial Training or Coaching service. During the course of audit conducted by the Internal Audit Party it was noticed that the Appellant was imparting computer education and also supplying to the students the course materials and kit that are required by the students for their computer education, through their CSC p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department only during the course of Audit, conducted by the Audit officers. Hence, it appeared that the Appellant has suppressed facts with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax. Show cause notice was therefore issued to the appellant and after due process of law the Adjudicating Authority passed the aforementioned OIO. Aggrieved by the OIO the appellant preferred an appeal. However, the appellate authority vide the impugned OIA upheld the OIO. Hence this appeal. 4. Ms. S. Sridevi, Learned Counsel appeared and argued for the appellant. She submits that they were registered with ST department for providing "Commercial Coaching and Training Services" and "Franchise Services". For providing the above services, they have rightly disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed period alleging suppression is not at all sustainable as the issue is well within the knowledge of the department. It is also her submission that this Tribunal has held that when the issue is interpretational in nature, the allegation of suppression is not sustainable. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed. 5. Shri. N. Satyanarayana, appeared for the Respondent and reiterated the findings of the appellate authority in the impugned OIA. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records as well as the citations submitted as relied upon. 7. We find that the only issue that arises for determination is whether the demand confirmed on the amount received by CSC Publications and Ramiah Publications, who are independent entities, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind any compelling reason to take a different view. The benefit of the Notification 12/2003 ibid enures to the appellant. That apart, we also notice that the SCN has been issued invoking Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Honourable Supreme Court has in the case of UOI v Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd, reported in (2018) TIOL 76-SC-ST : 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC), affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court wherein Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 which provided for inclusion of expenditures or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable services, in the value of such taxable services, was stuck down as ultra vires Section 66 and Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
