AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....94. On 01.12.2009, a search was conducted at the premises of the appellant, on the basis of intelligence, that the appellant was engaged in running Commercial Coaching Classes for the students of Chartered Accountant examination and providing coaching for different Chartered Accountant courses like Common Proficiency Test (CPT), IPCC to the students appearing in Chartered Accountant examination and not paying service tax, even though his annual turnover is above the small service provider exemption limit. The Central Excise officers during search operation took printout of all the records, maintained by computer and pen-drive (Transcend 4 GB) and seized CPU, LG written CD drive etc. and recovered Diary 1999 . The Central Excise officers recorded the statements of the appellant during investigation. 2. A show cause notice dated 02.07.2012 was issued proposing demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 57,03,113/- alongwith interest for the period from 01.4.2007 to 31.03.2011 and to impose penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also to appropriate an amount of Rs. 26,57,344/-, as paid by the appellant during investigation. The adjudicating authority confirmed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submits that the Adjudicating authority had not extended cum-tax benefit and option to pay penalty 25% of tax under Section 78 of the Act. The Tribunal had extended the benefit of cum-tax value in the following cases:- i) Robot Detective & Security Agency Vs C.C.Ex. reported in 2009(14)STR.689(Tri.) ii) C.C.Ex. & Cus. Patna Vs Advantage Media Consultant reported in 2008 (10) STR.449 (Tri.) 4. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that it is evident from the records that the appellant was providing commercial coaching service to the students appearing in Chartered Accountant examination. The demand was raised on the basis of detailed investigation, including the income tax returns filed by the appellant s relatives. Several summons were issued, but none of the relatives appeared before the investigating officer and therefore, the income of the said relatives were clubbed with income of the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant also avoided to appear before the investigating officers initially and after a compliant was filed before the competent authority, the appellant appeared before the investigating offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f employment. The job of the vocational training institute is that after such training or coaching, the trainee would be able to get job or to undertake self-entrepreneurship. In the present case, the appellant had provided the coaching to the students to appear in the examination conducted by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. It can not be considered that the appellant s institute is providing any coaching to seek employment or undertake self-employment after this coaching. After the coaching provided by the appellant, the students are not seeking employment, otherwise, they are appearing in examination conducted by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. We agree with the submission of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue that there are several coaching centres in the country for admission of joint entrance examination for Engineering & Medical, UPSC, SSC etc. which can not be treated as vocational training institute. 6. The learned Advocate strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pasha Educational Training Inst. (supra). In that case, the appellants were providing training on various fields, such as, Insurance Agen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e record that the appellant had admitted the tax liability by taking into consideration of the income of himself and his two students namely Shri Shailesh Arun Ghule and Shri Fenil M Gandhi. So, there is no force in the submission of the Learned Advocate, in respect of the clubbing of income of the appellant with the said two students. 8. The clubbing of income of the appellants with the income of the other relatives, as appeared in the seized Diary 1999 , the Adjudicating authority observed that on scrutiny of income tax return of relatives/ associates of the appellant submitted by the appellant, it is noticed that relatives and associates of the appellant have shown their income as fees like Tuition Income, CA Branch fees, Professional Fees, Rent Income, other income, Sales, Stitching & Designing income, in their income tax return. Summons were issued to the said persons and nobody turned up and therefore, the income (except salary income, interest, shares, mutual fund income, PPF, GPF, Fixed Deposit interest income etc.) shown in the income tax return and all these incomes have been considered as fees receipts from coaching classes by the appellant and the incomes of the rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the basis of their Bank Account and Income Tax returns, but, no notice was issued to them, which is a gross violation of principle of natural justice. 11. The Tribunal in the case of Ogesh Industries vs. CCE, Kanpur 1997 (94) ELT 88 (Tribunal), in respect of Central Excise case, held that at all times, the existence of M/s. Gore Industries was projected, the department should have issued show cause notice to M/s. Gore Industries. The adjudicating authority cannot pre-determine the issue and limit the show cause notice only to that unit which he consider to be only a real unit. The failure to issue show cause notice to one of them would show non-application of mind on the part of the authorities. There are several decisions of the Tribunal on identical issue as under: (a) S.K.N. Gas Appliances vs. CCE, New Delhi 2000 (120) ELT 732 (Tribunal) (b) Ramsay Pharma (P) Limited vs. CCE, Allahabad 2001 (127) ELT 789 (Tri. Del.) (c) Premier Printers vs. CCE, Cochin 2000 (126) ELT 788 (Tri.) (d) Shree Krishna Minerals vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2005 (190) ELT 251 (Tri. Bang.) (e) Copier Force India Limited vs. CCE, Chennai 2008 (231) ELT 224 (Tri. Chennai) (f) Southern Plywoo....