AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est under section 75 of the Finance Act and penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. 3. It needs to be noted that Service Tax Appeal No. 57371 of 2013 adjudicates the show cause notice dated 22.10.2011 while Service Tax Appeal No. 50907 of 2014 adjudicates the show cause notice dated 15.10.2012. The allegations raised in both the show cause notices are identical and the two impugned orders have dealt with the issues in same manner. These two appeal are, accordingly, been decided by this order. 4. The appellant claims to be a trader engaged in sale and purchase of machinery and its parts. The appellant claims that it also provided training services and consulting engineer services. However, it did not pay service tax. According to the department, the appellant provided commercial training or coaching services as defined under section 65(26) of the Finance Act and made taxable under section 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act; consulting engineer services as defined under section 65(31) of the Finance Act and made taxable under section 65(105)(g) of the Finance Act; and renting of immovable property service as defined under section 65(90a) of the Finance Act and made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Skill Courses under Skill Development Initiative Scheme and thus were exempted from payment of service tax under Notfn. No. 23/2010-ST dated 29.04.2010. 19. I find that the contention of the party, that they were providing vocational training as an associate of C.I.D.C. and their training were in relation to Modular Employable Skill Courses, is not sustainable in as much as that as per their letter dated 24.08.2011 the party submitted that they provided commercial coaching/training of workmen and supervisions under an agreement with CIDC, an agency recognized by the Government for testing and certification of skill of labour; that the fees were charged/collected from the students / trainees by the CIDC and the same were reimbursed to them and this fact had also been confirmed by the Director of the party in his statement dated 17.10.2011. Thus the party is not entitled to exemption from service tax under Notfn. No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004, as the training does not enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self employment directly after such training as the party imparted training for skill up-gradation of construction workers and training of workmen and sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....empt on part of the party to evade payment of service tax, no mis-statement, collusion or fraud by them as the service tax had already been paid by CIDC on the services provided by them and availed by ONGC. 22. I find that the contention of the party that they were not liable to service tax on the Consultancy Services provided by them to ONGC as the ONGC was charged the full service tax by CIDC and which had been paid / deposited with the Department, is not sustainable in as much as that the services have been provided by them and as such they were liable to pay service tax on the same. They could have opted for Cenvat facility under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and would have availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid by CIDC. To say that they were not aware of the procedure of Cenvat is also not tenable as ignorance of law is no excuse. As such, I am of the opinion that the party is liable to pay service tax on the consultancy fees received from CIDC under Sec 68 of the Financial Act, 1994 read with Rule 6(i) of the Service Tax Rule, 1994 and is liable to recovery from them under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994." (emphasis supplied) 7. In respect of renting of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant in relation to the demand for the subsequent period from 2012-13 and 2013-14; (iii) The consultancy services were rendered by the appellant pursuant to an agreement dated 23.08.2006 entered into between CIDC and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation [ONGC] for development of cost index, creating and updation of cost data base and costing software. CIDC charged full service tax from ONGC on the gross amount under its contract and, therefore, the appellant believed that it was not required to pay any further service tax. In this connection, learned consultant also placed reliance upon the Interim Order dated 22.08.2014 passed in this appeal for waiver of the pre-deposit; and (iv) The renting of immovable property service charges are essentially part of cost sharing system between the appellant and CIDC in using the premises and not towards rent. Thus, no service tax is liable to be paid. In this connection, learned consultant also placed reliance upon the Interim Order dated 22.08.2014 passed in this appeal in the matter relating to pre-deposit. 9. Shri Aejaz Ahmad, learned authorised representative appearing of the department, however, supported the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lude any centre or institute, by whatever name called, where training or coaching is imparted for consideration, whether or not such centre or institute is registered as a trust or a society or similar other organisation under any law for the time being in force and carrying on its activity with or without profit motive and the expression "commercial training or coaching" shall be construed accordingly." 15. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid definitions that 'commercial training or coaching' means any training or coaching provided by a commercial training or coaching centre. A 'commercial training or coaching centre' has been defined to mean, any institute or establishment providing commercial training or coaching for imparting skill or knowledge or lessons on any subject or field with or without issuance of a certificate and includes coaching or tutorial classes, but does not include any institute or establishment which issues any certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognized by law for the time being in force. 16. According to the appellant it was not only engaged in skill upgradation of construction workers and training of workmen un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Notifications dated 20.06.2003 and 29.04.2010. 21. The Notification dated 29.04.2010 is reproduced below: "...exempts the taxable service referred to in subclause (zzc) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, when provided in relation to Modular Employable Skill courses approved by the National Council of Vocational Training, by a Vocational Training Provider registered under the 'Skill Development Initiative Scheme with the Directorate General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Finance Act." 22. The appellant does not satisfy the conditions set out in this Notification because a perusal of the Memorandum of understanding dated 02.03.2006 between CIDC and the appellant does not specify the courses to be undertaken for provision of services by the appellant. The appellant also did not provide any certificate/document that it was registered with the Directorate General of Employment and Training under the Skill Development Initiative Scheme. 23. The appellant is also not entitled to the benefit of Notification dated 20.06.2003 as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Interim Order passed by the Tribunal regarding the waiver of pre-deposit. Reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in CST vs. Ashu Exports [2014 (34) STR 161 (Del.)] in this decision does not help the appellant as in the instant case it has been found as a fact the training provided by the appellant does not help the trainees to seek employment or have self-employment. 32. The next issue that arises for consideration is regarding imposition of penalty upon the appellant under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. 33. Section 77 provides for imposition of penalty for contravention of Rules and provisions of Act, for which no penalty is specified elsewhere. 34. Section 78 of the Finance Act deals with penalty for failure to pay service tax for reasons of fraud or collusion of wilful mis-statement. 35. Section 80 of the Finance Act, as stood prior to 14.05.2015, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in section 77, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 36. In the instance case, the appellant had contended that it was under ....