TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, the application is disposed of. SERTA 27/2025 & CM APPL. 70275/2025 5. This is an appeal challenging the decision of the Customs Excise &Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT') dated 19th April, 2024 (hereinafter, 'the impugned order') by which the Order-in-Original dated 30th June, 2014, has been modified by CESTAT. 6. The Respondent was offering certain training by providing CDs, DVDs and e-books to customers. The issue arose as to whether with these materials that were being sold by the Respondent, the accompanying services were also provided or not and whether the Respondent was liable to pay service tax in respect of the same or not. 7. The facts of the case have been captured by CESTAT in the impugned order in paragraph 2 which reads as under: "2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in supply of products (CD, DVD, e-books) through which customers of any age group could gain knowledge in the fields of language, Computer applications, managerial skills, entrepreneurship skills, etc. For the period 2001 to 2009, the Appellants extended courses to its customers through online and offline (selfowned, centre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue was not in dispute and the question is whether after 2009, service tax was liable to be paid or not. 11. In respect of this, the CESTAT came to the conclusion that insofar as imposition of service tax for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15is concerned, the same have already been decided in favour of the Respondent. However, the SCNs under challenge, as stated above, relate to 2007-08 to 2012-13. 12. On an overall assessment, the CESTAT came to the conclusion that only in respect of the years till 2008-09, the quantification of service tax would be justified and for the remaining years the service tax would not be liable to be paid. The Order-in-Original was accordingly modified. 13. Mr. Anurag Ojha, ld. Counsel for the Appellant, submits that the Respondent has merely continued to provide the same services but has claimed that no services are provided. A perusal of the documents would show that those customers who took the CDs and DVDs would require certain support as well and therefore service tax was liable to be paid. 14. On behalf of the Respondent, it is submitted that the training centres were not there after 2009. In view of thereof, no service tax was liable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1994 read with Rule (1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and further read with Section 91 read with Section 95 of the Finance Act, 2004 and Section 136 read with Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2007; (iv) I also order for recovery of interest amount from M/s. Dewsoft Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 402 Gagan Deep Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 at applicable rate of interest from the due date of paymenttill the actual date of deposit of the abovementioned service tax under Section 25 of the Act, (v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-on M/s. Dewsoft Overseas Pvt Ltd. 402, Gagan Deep Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 under Section 77 of the Act for not filing of proper ST-3 return to the proper officer, (vi) I impose penalty of Rs 25,58,59,899 (Rupees twenty five crores fifty eight lakhs fifty nine thousands eight hundred &ninty nine only) on M/s. Dewsoft Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 402, Gagan Deep Building. Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 under Section 78 of the said Act for short payment/non-payment of the impugned service tax and suppression of facts and by contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and as confirmed at sl. No. (i) of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fact that the appellant had informed the department in the replies to the show cause notices, but the same have not been considered in the impugned order. It has also been brought to our notice that the subsequent show cause notices for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 have been decided in the appellant's favour. It is also been pleaded before us that these orders have not been challenged by the department and have hence attained finality. It is also noted that the appellant did not have any authorised training centres as well Consequently, the demand under Franchise service confirmed in respect of the demand notice dated 17.10.2011 does not survive. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the demand confirmed in the subsequent show cause notices requires to be set aside. in view of the changed business model. 8. Accordingly, we uphold the demand confirmed in respect of the show cause notice dated 21.4.2010 for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 along with interest, and equal penalty imposed under section 78. However, the issue relating to quantification of the demand taking into consideration the contentions regarding cum-d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....3.2009 to extract the correct factual information. Records/documents relevant to the enquiry were resumed under panchnama and statements of concerned persons were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to like matters in service tax by section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. We find that in his statement dated 25.3 2009, Sh Manoj Kumar Satyawadi, Technical Support Executive, has admitted that he was not authorised to make any alteration or amendment in the data management but he could check the data available on the in-house server. It is noted that based on the data retrieved by the aforesaid Shri Manoj Satyawadi, the demand notice has been issued. It is on record that the data sheets were obtained during the course of search from the in-house server of the appellant by the executive in charge of technical support and duly authenticated by the said employee. We also note that Shri Manoj in his statement has categorically stated that he was not authorised to make any alteration or amendment in the data management. No contrary evidence has been led by the appellant for us to ignore the data as retrieved and authenticated by an employee of the app....