2024 (8) TMI 610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g to Rs.25,720/- along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereafter in short "Act"); the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also imposed penalty of Rs.1,000/- under Section 77 for non-filing of ST-3 Returns for the half year ending in September, 2008 and equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant was registered with the Service Tax department w.e.f. 04.11.2008 for providing "Commercial Training or Coaching Services". The appellant was providing services as a franchise of M/s Shokeenda Electro Ltd, 5A, Pitampura, New Delhi (in short "SEL"). The appellant Mrs. Swarnjit Kaur w/o Sh. Jasbir Singh was the proprietor of the computer centre. SEL had appo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng with 12.36% as service tax as per the agreement and the invoices of SEL. 4.3 He further submits that the entire service tax for which the demand has been confirmed stands paid to SEL as per their invoices and no demand persists against the appellant and if the demand is confirmed, it will amount to double taxation on the amount which has been remitted to franchisor along with service tax. Alternatively, he has submitted that the appellant is eligible for Cenvat Credit of the amount of service tax paid on the amount of franchise free/royalty which will neutralize the demand payable by the appellant. 4.4 Further, he submits that penalty has wrongly been imposed under Section 78 of the Act whereas the appellant has filed the ST-3 Returns ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is liable to pay service tax on the gross amount of Rs.6,15,495/- collected by the appellant and no deduction on account of royalty of Rs.2,13,200/- paid to SEL is available to them. In this regard, we may refer to the decision in the case of Saraswati Shiksha Kendra (supra), wherein the Tribunal on the identical facts, has observed in para 3 as under: "3. In the present case we are concerned with the extent of liability of the appellant and on a prima facie consideration, we are of the opinion that the appellant is liable to pay Service tax on the entire amount collected from the students. It was submitted that the money received from the students is deposited in a joint account in the names of M/s. Saraswati Shiksha Kendra i.e the appel....