2024 (4) TMI 110 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Denies SSI Exemption Appeal; Services Under Another Brand Name Ineligible, Penalties Upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's appeal, finding no merit in their claim for SSI Exemption on services rendered under a franchise agreement. The ... SSI Exemption - rendering of branded service or not - suppression of facts or not - invocation of Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no reason for mis-interpretation of SSI Exemption notification. In this view of the matter, having no merits in the grounds of Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed. Issues:The issue in this Appeal is whether the Appellant is entitled to SSI Exemption on the value of services rendered by them.Details:The Appellants entered into an agreement to provide 'Commercial Training or Coaching service' on behalf of another company under a franchise agreement. The departmental officers visited the appellant's premises and recorded a statement from the Proprietor. The Appellants provided computer training courses during a specific period. The Appellant collected fees from students, part of which was sent to the franchiser. A Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of service tax, interest, and penalties. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand with interest and penalty under relevant sections of the Finance Act.The Appellant contested the Show Cause Notice on the grounds that the total collection did not exceed a certain amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Appeal in part, stating that the Show Cause Notice was issued within the applicable time frame. The Commissioner set aside one penalty but upheld another. The Appeal against the Order-in-Original was modified accordingly.The Appellant appealed before the Tribunal, arguing that they did not render any branded service and that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to no suppression of facts. The Appellant believed they were entitled to SSI Exemption due to their receipts being below a certain threshold. The Appellant requested the Appeal to be allowed.The Revenue argued that the grounds taken by the Appellant were not supported by the facts on record. They pointed out that the exemption notification does not apply to taxable services provided under a brand name of another person. The Revenue prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed.The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances, found no reason for misinterpretation of the SSI Exemption notification. They concluded that the Appeal had no merits and dismissed it.