2025 (3) TMI 504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ference of Rs 5,12,058 for the year 2007-08 65,802, arrived on reconciliation of Balance Sheet and ST-3 returns. The appellants however have paid Rs 65,802 with interest on 28.8.2009. Accordingly, it appeared to the Revenue that the appellant was required to pay Service tax of Rs 24, 21 676. A show cause notice dated 22nd October 2009 was issued to the appellants demanding service tax along with interest and penalties. The original authority vide order dated 27th October 2010, dropped the demand of Rs 18,32,583(for the period 10.09.2004 to 15.06.2005); confirmed a demand of Rs.3,94,047 (for the period 1.7.2004-09.09.2004) and a demand of Rs. 1,29,244 (for the advances received as on 1.7.2004) along with interest and penalties while confirming and appropriating Rs 65,802 paid by the appellants. 2. Both the Revenue and the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of demands dropped and confirmed respectively. Learned Commissioner (Appeals, vide impugned order dated 5th November 2012, allowed the appeal filed by Revenue relying of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunwin Technosolution Pvt Ltd 2011(21) STR 97(SC) and partly allowed the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5 (12) SCC 717] Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. - 2009 (14) STR 593 Hemraj Gordhandas - [1978 (2) ELT J350 (SC)] Rukmani Pakkwell Traders - 2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC) Sunder Steels Ltd. - 2005 (181) ELT 154 (SC) TISCO Ltd. - (1978) 1 ELT J61 Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaeuticals Ltd. - [Order No.A/668/WZB/2004-C-II dated 20.08.2004] MRF Ltd. - 2005 (179) ELT 472 (Tri. Mad.) Yokogawa Blue Star Ltd. - 2005 (186) ELT 601 (Tri.) Leela Jain - AIR 1965 SC 1296 Kush Saigal - (2000) 4 SCC 526 Star Neon Singh Vs. Commissioner [2002 (141) ELT 770 (Tri- Del.)] Flyingman Air Courier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2004 (170) ELT 417 (Tri-Del)) ETA Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2004 (174) ELT 19 (Tri-LB)] Hindustan Steel Ltd. - 1978 (2) ELT J 159 (SC) Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC): CIT v. Khoday Eswara & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC); CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC); Cement Marketing Co. of India v. Assistant Commissioner of SalesTax 1980 (6) ELT 295 (SC) EID Pary (1) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ricity Board Vs Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad [1984 (16) E.LT. 579 (Tribunal) Bajaj Travels Ltd. vs Commissioner of Service Tax reported as 2012 (025) STR 0417 (Del.) Mett Macdonald Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 524 (Tri.-Del.) Lovely Autos Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana reported as 2023 (79) G.S.T.L. 258 (Tri. - Chan.) Espn Software India (P) Ltd. Versus Commr. of Service Tax, New Delhi - 2014 (35) S.T.R. 927 (Tri. - Del.) 6. Regarding the issue of limitation Learned Authorized Representative submits that the appellants did not get themselves registered even though the service rendered by them was taxable from 1/7/2003 and CBEC issued circular no. 65/14/2003 dated 5/11/2003; even when the exemption under notification no. 9/2003-ST dated 20/6/2003 was amended with effect from 30/6/2004; they did not comply with the various summonses; Shri Rajesh Vaidya, Partner of the appellant, accepted that though exemption was not available after 1/7/2004, they registered themselves on 22/7/2005 ; they did not pay Service Tax even after 1/7/2004 till 10/9/2004; they did not pay Service Tax correctly even after th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notification was also in operation from the date of its issuance, i.e., from 10-9-2004 to 15-6-2005 without there being any other intendment. 11. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in respect of the contents of the notification dated 7th June, 2005 is concerned, in our considered opinion the said amendment was brought in by adding the proviso more or less in the nature of clarification and the same was made effective from 16-6-2005. The Government thought it fit to make it abundantly clear by issuing the said notification. The liability. so far as the respondent is concerned, to pay the service tax between the period 10-9-2004 to 15-6-2005, therefore subsisted " 9. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that there is no doubt as to the taxability of Computer Coaching and Training Institutes during the period 10.09.2004 to 15.06.2005. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the legislative intent behind the Notification in no uncertain terms. This being so, we are not inclined to buy the argument of the appellants that while interpreting the notification, intention of the government is not r....