TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....profit organisation, incorporated in the year 2004 under the Companies Act, 1956 with an object to establish and run educational institutes, training institutes and the like for propagating education in all fields in India and elsewhere. The petitioner offered other two courses namely PGPM and PGDM, which was approved by AICTE and entitled to exemption from payment of service tax. 4. The Service Tax Department had earlier treated activities of the petitioner as that of a taxable service of 'Commercial Training or Coaching Services' within the meaning of Section 65(27) of Finance Act, 1994 and had issued show cause notice No.73/2006 dated 22.08.2006 for the period between 01.04.2004 to 31.07.2006 and proposed a demand for a sum of Rs. 1,59,27,396/-. 5. The petitioner was a non-profit organisation and had entertained a bona fide doubt that its activities were outside the purview of the taxable service of a 'Commercial or Coaching Centre' during the relevant period. The demand was confirmed by the Commissioner vide O.I.O No.14/2007 dated 30.04.2007. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, reiterated that the Settlement Commission has not considered the contention of the petitioner that the Courses approved by the AICTE are exempted from payment of service tax. This was not taken into consideration by the first respondent-Settlement Commission and the learned counsel, drawn the attention of this Court with reference to the application submitted by the petitioner and various documents produced by the petitioner, to establish that the Courses are approved by the AICTE and the said approval was admitted by the respondents also. While-so, there is no reason whatsoever to reject the application by the Settlement Commission and thus, the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration. 14. It is contended that the report filed by the Commission on two occasions not served to the petitioner, to enable the petitioner to respond to the objections raised. This apart, the petitioner with an intention to settle the matter, approached the first respondent and in the event of any doubt, the first respondent ought to have directed the petitioner to clarify the issues, more specifically, regarding the approval of Courses by the AICTE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to have the case settled, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed and containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction, the manner in which such liability has been derived, the additional amount of excise duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be prescribed including the particulars of such excisable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification, under- valuation, inapplicability of exemption notification or Cenvat credit [or otherwise] and any such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided." 20. The primary condition stipulated in sub-section (1) to Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, is that the application submitted by the person must contain a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction. 21. Section 32L of the Central Excise Act, provides, power of Settlement Commission to send a case back to the Central Excise Officer. Sub Section (1) contemplates that "the Settlement Commission may, if it is of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rked out without extending cum-tax relief. The applicant relied on the provisions of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, Notification No.33/2011 ST dated 25. 04.2011, Negative list under Section 66D(I)(ii), Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 and Board's Circular No.107/01/2009 ST dated 28.01.2009 with regard to claim of exemption. 10.3 The Revenue, on the other hand vehemently contended and reiterated that the subject Show Cause Notices did not propose any demand of Service Tax in respect of Courses such as PGCM, EPGDM, which are approved by AICTE and therefore the entire demand is sustainable. Further, the department also contested the relief sought by the Applicant to treat the consideration as cum-tax in the absence of worksheet supported by records for verification by the Revenue. This is despite the fact that during the Course of hearing on 19.07.2016, the Department representative clearly pointed out and submitted that the Show Cause Notices have not demanded service tax on Courses which have been approved by the AICTE. The Applicant has not effectively countered it in spite of applicant being provided with ample opportunities. The question whether the Sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Settlement Commission adjudicating upon the notice, based on the submissions made by the rival parties to the proceedings. It is now a well settled proposition that the Settlement Commission is not an adjudicating authority. It is only an arbitration forum where a dispute is settled in the interest of both the parties within the framework of law. This principle has clearly been enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Amrut Ornaments reported in 204 (305) ELT 365 (Bom.), and by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharampal Satyapal as reported in 2013 (298) ELT 653 (Del.), by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vinay Wire Poly Product P. Ltd vs. Director General of Central Excise Intelligence reported at 2014 (307) E.L.T 438 (AII) and also by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Australian Foods Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II reported in 2012 (254) E.L.T. 392 (Mad.). 10.11 In view of the foregoing discussions, the Bench observes that the case is not one that can be settled in this forum in view of rival claims on facts, leading to total contradiction and confrontation on facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the details of the Course wise demand made in each of the impugned show cause notices. In spite of this factual position, the petitioner is attempting to mislead the Court by giving false and distorted facts. 5. I submit that, regarding Para 60 (xiv), again the petitioner is trying to mislead the Court by giving false statement. In this context it is worth mentioning that Hon'ble Settlement Commission vide Para 10.3 by the order observes "The department also contested the relief sought by the Applicant to treat the consideration as cum-tax in the absence of worksheet supported by records for verification by the Revenue. This is despite the fact that during the Course of hearing on 19.07.2016, the Department representative clearly pointed out and submitted that the Show Cause Notices have not demanded service tax on Courses which have been approved by the AICTE. The petitioner has not effectively countered it in spite of petitioner being provided with ample opportunities. The question whether the Show Cause Notices have included in its ambit or not is simply a question of fact and the same could have been easily sorted out by producing all the evidences showing factual posi....