TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and accordingly held certain activities of those institutes to be taxable service as defined under section 65(105)(zzc) of the Act. The aforesaid show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation under section 73(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that the appellant had mis-stated certain facts and suppressed certain facts with intent to evade payment of tax. The show-cause notice further proposed penalties, and also proposed to levy interest on tax under section 75 of the Act. It also proposed penalties on the noticee under sections 76 to 78 of the Act. The allegations in the show-cause notice were denied and the demands/proposals contained therein were contested. It was in adjudication of this dispute that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner, who confirmed demand of service tax to the extent of Rs. 6,04,45,112 against the society for the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2006, along with education cess of Rs. 10,16,685 and also imposed a penalty equal to the sum of tax and cess on the assessee under section 78 of the Act. The party is also held, liable to pay interest at the appropriate rate under section 75 of the Act. The appeal and the present application aris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-barred inasmuch as the appellant had not suppressed or misstated any material fact with intent to evade payment of tax so as to warrant invocation of the extended period of limitation against them. All the relevant facts were brought to the knowledge of the department in 2004-05, albeit in response to queries. However, the show-cause notice was issued as late as in 2006, for which delay there is no explanation. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to judicial authorities in support of the various points raised by him which we will be considering as and when the context may arise. 3. Countering the above arguments, the learned Jt. CDR has, at the outset, brought to our notice the Explanation added to sub-clause (zzc) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Act. It is submitted that, after the said amendment, the question as to 'commercial character' of an institution or the training or coaching imparted by such institution is irrelevant. What is necessary for levy of service tax under section 65(105)(zzc) of the Act with the Explanation thereto is that 'training or coaching' must be shown to have been imparted by the institution for a consideration. Whether the institution i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., balance-sheet etc. for the year 2002-03. As no response was received, the department issued a reminder in June 2004. On 27-5-2004, the appellant replied to the letter dated 12-5-2004 ibid but without furnishing any information. In this letter, they argued that they were not liable to pay service tax as "commercial training or coaching centre". In another letter, the appellant provided information regarding numerous institutes run by them, including particulars of various certificate/diploma/degree courses offered by such institutes. In February 2005, in reply to another letter from the department, the appellant gave an account of various curriculum courses, vocational courses and sports training and claimed exemption from payment of service tax. But the data which the appellant was pointedly required to furnish were never furnished. This led the department to issue a letter in November, 2005 to the appellant under section 14 of the Central Excise Act read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 compelling them to furnish the following information : "1. The status of your institute (University/College/Study Center, etc.) 2. List of courses conducted, along with date of comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the learned Jt. CDR based on the Explanation to section 65(105)(zzc) of the Act. The Explanation reads as under :- "Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "commercial training or coaching centre" occurring in this sub-clause and in clauses (26), (27) and (90a) shall include any centre or institute, by whatever name called, where training or coaching is imparted for consideration, whether or not such centre or institute is registered as a trust or a society or similar other organization under any law for the time being in force and carrying on its activity with or without profit motive and the expression "commercial training or coaching" shall be construed accordingly." It stands virtually conceded that 'any centre or institute, by whatever name called, whether or not it is registered as a trust or a society under any law for the time being in force and carrying on its activity with or without profit motive would come within the scope and ambit of "commercial training or coaching centre" as long as the training or coaching is imparted for a consideration.' Before the learned Commissioner, the assessee forcefully relied on this T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause notice. In this scenario, we can hardly hold that the appellant did not suppress material facts before the department. In some of their letters, they argued that they were not liable to pay service tax. This happened during the course of investigations. The show-cause notice alleged suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty to invoke the extended period of limitation This allegation has not been successfully contested in this case. The appellant has not even attempted to show their bona fides, if any, in refraining from getting registered with the department, furnishing the requisite information to the department and complying with other statutory obligations including payment of service tax due to the revenue. For all these reasons, we are, prima facie, of the view that the demand of service tax is not time-barred for any part of the period of dispute. 8. The learned senior counsel has prayed for waiver and stay of recovery in this case on the strength of Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in CEAT Ltd. v. Union of India 2010 (250) ELT 200, wherein it was held that, if the party made out a strong prima facie case that by itself would be a strong ground fo....