TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period 1.7.2003 to 31.3.2005, was proposed. A differential service tax of Rs. 31,762/- was also proposed to be recovered from the appellant along with the proportionate interest and appropriate penalties. The said show-cause notice was decided vide order-in-original 03/2007-08 dated 30th May 2007 while confirming the said proposal. The order was challenged before CESTAT SZB, Bangalore. Vide Final Order No. 1140/08 dated 14/08/2010 (Inclusive of stay order 991/08) the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for examining the issue denovo and to pass an order in accordance with law. The Tribunal also directed the appellants to produce all records as that of requisite ledgers etc. before the said adjudicating authority to show that the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional Institutions Ltd (VEIL) to be an interdependent organization of Vikas Educational Society (VES) for providing infrastructural facilities to VES. But payments have been received in the name of coaching fee/tuition fee by both the entities VES and VEIL though against separate receipts. It is impressed upon that the same was sufficient proof to the fact that M/s VEIL were rendering commercial coaching services which is taxable, but the respondent assessee has failed to discharge its liability towards the said service. It is finally submitted that Commissioner has apparently failed to appreciate the fact that both VEIL & VES are one and the same. They have merely forged bills in order to evade payment of duty. Hence, the order holding th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and a part of bill was made in the name of VEIL. Since VES on its own could not run the classes for imparting commercial coaching being non-profitable organization it was probably that VES chose to raise the bills in the name of VEIL. Commissioner has also appreciated that there was no evidence except for bills/ profit and loss accounts to prove that the VEIL was capable of imparting any commercial coaching taking separate teaching staff, have separate pay rolls etc. based o,n these observations, that the demand against the assessee respondents has rightly been dropped. Appeal accordingly is prayed to be dismissed. 5. After considering the rival contentions, of the parties, perusing the entire record, we observe the following to be admit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he students in the name of tuition fee. 6. All the above admissions make it clear that commercial coaching has been provided against collecting same fees as has been collected by VEIL, respondents and though by VES also but through separate receipts. VES/VEIL are interdependent entities. Irrespective of the fact that VEIL was providing infrastructural support to VES, but the fact remains is that VES could not provide said commercial coaching. Admittedly VEIL was collecting money from the students in the name of tuition fee only. There is a verbal submission that the said amount was actually for infrastructural support to VES, in the guise of tuition fee. But we are of the opinion that said oral submission is not sufficient to falsify the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as proposed to them. This leads to a strange situation where a person who might have violated the statute was not made a noticee whereas the one who had an incidental role was proceeded against which is not correct." 7.2 From the perusal of these findings, we observe that once the documents as that of bills/profit & Loss accounts of the assessee respondent were before the authorities showing that VEIL had been collecting money from the students of commercial coaching in the name of tuition fee and that VES was not capable of imparting such commercial coaching, the evidence with respect to infrastructural facilities being provided by VEIL to VES to impart such coaching becomes absolutely redundant to falsify that VEIL was collecting money....