TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present case are that the appellant were working as a franchise of M/s Punjab Infotech Ltd, Udyog Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh (in short "PIL") and providing IT training in software and hardware, for which licence had been issued to them for running authorized CAL-C Centre of PIL. The department alleged that during the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10, the appellant had provided branded services under the category of "Commercial Coaching and Training". It was also alleged that since the appellant had been providing branded services being franchise of PIL, benefit of small service provided, as envisaged under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005, was not available to them. The appellant were also advised by the jurisdictional Range Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the main purpose of providing the IT training in software and hardware was to enable to trainees to seek employment; on completion of the training, diplomas/certificates were issued by the Punjab Information and Communication Technology Corporation Limited, an ISO-9001 Certified State Government Undertaking; the diplomas/certificates issued by PIL were recognized by law. He further submits that the service provided by the appellant was exempted under Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 upto 26.02.2010 and the value of taxable service during the period from 27.02.2010 to 31.03.2010 was NIL. He further submits that the appellant were entitled to take benefit under Notification No. 10/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003, which exempts Commercia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. Further, he submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has examined all the grounds raised by the appellant in their grounds of appeal and has given categorical findings as per law. He also submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically held that the appellant are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 10/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 because they do not satisfy the third condition of the said notification. He also submits that the department had been writing letters to the appellant but the appellant did not bother to get themselves registered and pay the service tax and file the returns, therefore, the extended period of limitation has rightly been invok....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exempt under Notification No. 10/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. The said institute also fell within the same Central Excise Division under whom the appellant"s institute is situated. 8. Further, we find that the issue involved in the present case was purely of interpretation of the exemption notification and therefore, "suppression" cannot be alleged. Further, we note that when the extended period of limitation cannot be involved, then the demand for period, which is within the limitation, cannot be confirmed. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd vs. Union of India - 2014 (36) STR 37 (Cal.), wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has observed as under: "9....