TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings are in respect of Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust (hereinafter referred to as PYT). 1.2 The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence on receipt of information that the activities of PYT attract service tax under Section 65 (105) (zw) of Finance Act, 1994 readwith Section 65 (51) and (52) ibid as health and fitness service, but they are neither registered with service tax authorities not are paying any service tax, initiated investigations in course of which inquiry was made with various persons including Acharya Bal Krishan, Secretary General of the Trust, Shri Shamvir Singh Saini, Chief Accountant Officer etc. After completing investigation, a show cause notice dated 25/4/12 was issued to the appellant PYT for (a) for demand of allegedly non-paid service tax amounting to Rs. 4,94,33,027/- on taxable services of health and fitness provided by them during the period from October 2006 to 31/3/11 alongwith interest on it at the applicable rate under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 ; (b) imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 ; and (c) imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 76 as well as 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll-being and not the yoga courses meant for curing specific ailments, that all the courses being organized by the appellant were for cure of specific ailments and hence the same are not covered, that in respect of residential yoga courses, the amounts charged were only for lodging and boarding and not for imparting instructions in yoga which were free, that in any case, except for a small part of demand for normal limitation period, the bulk of the service tax demand is time barred, as there was no suppression of any fact on the part of the appellant in as much as after a long and detailed correspondence of the Department with the sister trust DYM during 2004 and 2005, that trust had furnished the entire information to the Department, that Shri Acharya Bal Krishan, Secretary General of the appellant trust is also the Secretary of DYM trust, that at that time though the stand of DYM was that their services are not taxable, on persuasion of by the department, all the relevant information was furnished, but thereafter no show cause notice was issued, that in view of this, the present appellant which is also headed by the same person Acharya Bal Krishan, was under impression that their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he department and hence not only longer limitation period under proviso to Section 73 (1) would be invokable, penalty under Section 78 ibid would also be attracted and that in view of this, this is not the case for waiver, as the appellant have fail to establish prima facie case in their favour. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and have perused the records. 6. The subject matter of dispute in this case is various residential as well as non-residential yoga courses being organized by the appellant. There is no dispute that in respect of residential as well as non-residential yoga courses being organized by the appellant some amount are being collected from the participants. Section 65 (105) (zw) of the Finance Act, 1994 makes the services provided by health club and fitness centre, as defined under Section 65 (52) to any person taxable. Under Section 65 (52) of the Finance Act, 1994 'health club and fitness centre' means any establishment including the hotel or a resort, providing health and fitness service. Under Section 65 (51), 'health and fitness service' means service for physical well-being such as sauna and steam bath, Turkish bath, solar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness service, the stand of DYM trust was that the same is not taxable, but ultimately sometime in March 2005, the required information was furnished to the department by DYM trust. However surprising, no further action was taken by the department and as such no show cause notice was issued. It is only in 2011 that fresh inquiry was initiated against Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust, without any reference to the earlier correspondence of the sister trust with the department. Since both the trusts are headed by the same person and DYM trust had long correspondence with the Jurisdictional Central Excise officers on the question of taxability of the yoga courses, we are of the prima facie view that in view of a series of judgments of the Apex Court Padmini Products 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.), CCE vs. Chempher Drugs and Liniments 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) and Vulcan Techno Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (241) E.L.T. 472, the appellant cannot be accused of suppressing the relevant information from the department and extended period under proviso to Section 73 (1) would not be invokable. We also find that though this point was specifically made in course of proceedings before the Commissioner, no findings hav....