TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was alleged that the appellants are engaged in the business of providing taxable services falling under the category of Manpower Recruitment Agency Services. However, they had not made any payment. Consequently, revenue proceeded against them by way of issue of show-cause notice. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 10,90,531 (Rupees ten lakh ninety thousand five hundred and thirty-one only) under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services for the period from 1999-2000 to 2002-03. He demanded interest under section 75. He imposed penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act, but dropped the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 15,84,711 (Rupees fifteen lakh eighty four thousand seven hundred and eleven on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liable to taxable services under the category of Consulting Engineer Services. He has reproduced the CBEC Circular dated 2-7-1997, which had clarified the scope of Consulting Engineer Service, which inter alia includes Manpower Planning and Training. He has also observed in the order that the assessee failed to adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim with the training related to Computer Training or Software Training. After making such an observation, he has confirmed the demand under Consulting Engineer Services. In the impugned order, he had confirmed the said demand, interest under section 75 has been demanded. However, a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs only) had been imposed under section 78 of the Fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide information or facts for the assessment under section 71, then the extended period can be invoked. In the present case, the appellant was not issued any notice for verification of the records for assessment. Hence, extended period cannot be invoked. Even if the new provisions of section 73 are followed, to invoke the larger period, there should be suppression of facts, fraud or collusion. The appellant is registered under Manpower Recruitment Agency on 23-5-2002 and thereafter paying the Service Tax regularly. Hence, the question of using the word suppression in the show-cause notice is not relevant as the appellant was under the bona fide belief that the service of training is not liable to Service Tax. Many case-laws were relied on. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assification and hence such clarification is not relevant once the proper head of service is introduced. (ii) Waters India (P.) Ltd. v. CST [2007] 6 STT 8 (Bang.-CESTAT) Appellant was giving only tuition or coaching to correctly use the technology. Such service does not come within the meaning of consulting engineer service. (e) Further, CESTAT in the case of Waters India (P.) Ltd. (supra) had held that in house training to the corporate or customers does not fit into the definition of consulting engineer service. Moreover, the MOF clarification relied on by the Commissioner indicates 'Manpower Planning and Training'. The appellant has never engaged in the service of Manpower Planning and training'. They had engaged only in Compute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing or software training effective from 1-7-2003. This is very clear by way of granting exemption for computer training for a partial period and thereafter excluding the same from the exemption Notification No. 24/2004-ST, dated 10-9-2004. In the said notification, it is clearly defined that computer training institute as under: "A Computer Training or Coaching Centre, which provides coaching or training relating to computer software or hardware". In view of the above, there is no justification for imposing a heavy penalty. 6. The learned JCDR reiterated the impugned order. 7. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the order of the Commissioner has not examined the facts and legal issues properly. We find tha....