TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal authority found that Bio Campus had rendered taxable services classifiable under 'Commercial Training or Coaching' during the period from 1-7-2003 to 30-9-2004 and had not followed the statutory formalities including payment of service tax due. He rejected the assessee's claim that the training imparted was "computer software training" exempted from payment of service tax under Notification No. 9/2003-ST, dated 20-6-2003. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 7,40,200 towards service tax due on services rendered during 1-7-2003 to 3-6-2004 and imposed penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. He appropriated an amount of Rs. 4,95,502 paid by the appellants towards their tax liability for the period from 1-7-2004 to 31-3-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the certificate issued to successful candidates by M/s. Accelrys Inc. is submitted in support of the claim that the students received only training in the use of software. It is submitted that the appellants had paid tax for the period from 1-7-2004 to 31-3-2005 before the adjudication which showed that they had no mala fide intention to evade tax. They sought waiver of penalties imposed under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. They relied on case law in support of the claim that penalty was not imposable if non-payment of tax was without intention to evade payment of tax. It is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside to the extent of confirmation of service tax for the period from 1-7-2003 to 30-6-2004 and imposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orld leader in bioinformatics and chemi-informatics software. We find that the appellants impart training in different branches of knowledge using the software procured from M/s. Accelrys Inc., USA. We find that the appellants are not training students in the application of software, but imparts specialized knowledge in branches of Science using software. Therefore, the claim of the appellants that the impugned activity qualified for exemption as "computer software training" cannot be countenanced. As regards the claim that the assessee was a vocational training institute eligible for exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST, dated 20-6-2003, we find that it is a claim being canvassed for the first time before us. From the literature furn....