TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the fees collected from them during October, 2004 to March, 2006. The service provided by the assessee to their students is "commercial training and coaching" service, which became taxable for service tax w.e.f. 1-7-2003. The assessee had not paid service tax on the said amounts, nor disclosed the relevant facts to the department in the relevant returns. On this basis, the department by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 demanded the aforesaid amount of service tax and proposed to impose equal amount of penalty on the noticee. In adjudication of the show-cause notice, the original authority confirmed the demand of tax and imposed penalty on the assessee. The appellate authority s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tute - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 18 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it was held that payment of service tax was linked to receipt of service charges and, therefore, service tax was leviable on 'commercial training and coaching service', rendered after 1-7-2003 even if the service charges were collected in advance prior to that date. In his rejoinder, learned counsel submits that, where there is a conflict of view on the issue, the benefit thereof should go to the assessee and accordingly the relief of waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery should be given. 3. In the instant case, we find that, for a part of the period of dispute, the conflict of decisions referred to by the learned counsel will have no relevance. This period is October, 2004 to March, 2006....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 1-7-2003 in respect of services provided after 1-7-2003. Annexure II supposedly contained details of service tax collected from the students during the period 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2004 and Annexure III supposedly contained details of services tax paid during 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2004. It has been submitted by the counsel that all the relevant information was supplied to the department through Annexures I, II and III ibid as early as in July, 2004 and, therefore, the department was very well aware of all the relevant facts when the show-cause notice in question was issued to the appellant (show-cause notice dated 22-10-2007). Therefore, according to learned counsel, the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax is not su....