TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 958
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-Original No. KNP-EXCUS-000-COM-035-15-16 dated 09/02/2016 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur. 2. We have heard Ms. Rinki Arora learned Advocate on behalf of both the appellants and Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned Superintendent on behalf of revenue. Ms. Rinki Arora learned Advocate has submitted that the appellant is a company, established by Government of Uttar Pradesh to provide Consultancy Services with regard to socio economic surveys, evaluation of schemes of Central and State Governments, census surveys etc. The appellants were also instrumental in imparting computer and non-computer training to employees of Government Department and to women, schedule caste and schedule tribe and other backward class ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further submitted that consulting engineering service was provided to Government agencies and therefore, it was not liable to service tax. She has further, submitted that the appellant has not disputed service tax liability of Rs. 1,641/- in respect of 'Business Auxiliary Service' and Rs. 3,497/- in respect of 'Legal Service'. She has submitted that extended period of limitation was not invokable since intention to evade payment of service tax cannot be presumed against a government company. She has further submitted that service tax demand under extended period is not sustainable. Therefore, personal penalty on the other appellant is also not sustainable. 3. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh learned Superintendent appearing for revenue has supported ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant had requested to Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh to release Rs. 2,23,42,423/- so that the same could be deposited as service tax to Government Exchequer. We note that since the amount to be paid as service tax was being requested to be released by Chief Secretary, we are convenienced that the appellant's company is a company, established by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. We note that the learned Counsel for the appellant has pleaded that being a government company, allegations of malafide intention cannot be leviable against the same. We have already held that the Government does not had intention to evade payment of duty, therefore, in the present case we hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable. We, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstitutes. Further, he had submitted a list of franchisees for conducting computer and non-computer training. He further stated that the appellant paid only 40% of the total amount to the franchisee. We note that since the appellant does not have its own training institute and training is provided by franchisee training institutes, the service tax is not payable by the appellant in respect of computer and non-computer training because service recipients are trainees and the service providers are franchisee training institutes. Therefore, the demand in respect of 'Commercial Training or Coaching Service' even for the normal period of limitation is not sustainable. We, further, note through the proceedings that Consultancy Engineering Serv....