2018 (9) TMI 760

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent.   ORDER : 1. This Appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 ("the Act") read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 10th July 2015 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. The Revenue urges only the following two questions of law for consideration : (i) Whether in the facts a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 31st January 2007 and 21st October 2008 to the Respondent seeking to recover the service tax under the head "Commercial Training or Coaching Center" for the period from 1st July 2003 to 1st April 2006 and 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2008 respectively. The two notices also required the Respondent to show cause why penalty under Section 78 of the Act should not be imposed under the Act. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... both the Show Cause Notices were beyond the normal period of limitation and consequently, also deleted the equivalent penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act. This on the ground that the issue whether a charitable institution could be brought to tax under the Act was a debatable issue and finally came to be resolved by the Tribunal in Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee (SCEC) Vs. the Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mitation and also the impugned order dated 10th July 2015 placed reliance upon the above order of Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee (supra) and restricted the demand in both the Notices to the extent of the demand being within the normal period of limitation and also deleted the penalty.   6. The grievance of the Revenue is the deletion of the demand beyond the normal period of limitation ....