2011 (8) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....students during the period of April, May and June 2003. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax demand of Rs.24,560/- on the ground that the said fee was collected by the respondent for the coaching services to be provided by them after 1.7.2003, when the said services were brought under the service tax net.   4. On the other hand, Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the respondent s stand that such fee collection was in respect of the course to be ended on 27th June 2003, when the services were not leviable to the service tax. He has observed that Revenue has not advanced any evidence to show that such fee collection was in respect of the services to be provided after 1.7.2003.   He has also observed that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Hon ble Supreme Court, he has held that demand is barred by limitation.   5. The said order of Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before us by the Revenue.   6. Ld. DR appearing for Revenue has drawn our attention to the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE Vs. P.T. Education & Training Service Ltd. reported in 2009 (15) STR 453 (tri.-Del.) lays down that advances of coaching fee collected prior to 1.7.2003, for a course extended beyond 1.7.2003 are leviable to service tax on pro rata basis. As such, submitted by the ld. DR that the finding arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) are not correct. He has also assailed the findings of limitation on the ground that as the appellant did not file any ST-3 returns or did not reflect t....