TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of the Department that during the course of investigation by the SIR Cell of the erstwhile Service Tax Commissionerate, it was noticed that though the Appellant was engaged in providing the above taxable service from April 2006 and was collecting the taxable value from their students, they obtained Registration only in the month of December 2008 and paid Rs.12,00,000/- on 05.12.2008. Scrutiny of their documents revealed that there was no difference in value between Balance sheets and Bank statements. However, when compared with Balance sheet and GAR-7 challan paid, it was noticed that they had short-paid service tax for the period from April 2006 to March 2011 to the tune of Rs.24,27,786/- under the said service category. They neither pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; we have carefully considered the rival contentions; we have perused the documents placed on record and also the written submissions/synopsis made available during the course of arguments. Upon hearing the rival contentions, the issues that arise for our consideration are: (i) whether the Appellant is liable to pay service tax for the services rendered by it under 'Commercial Training and Coaching Service' ? and (ii) whether the Department is justified in invoking the extended period of limitation? 4. Elsewhere in the earlier paragraphs we have extracted/reproduced brief facts as appearing in the impugned order; going by the same, we find that as early as in December 2008, the Appellant obtained Service tax Registratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t imparts skill to enable such students/candidates to seek employment or self-employment directly after training or coaching and hence, they are entitled to rightly claim the benefit of Notification No.24/2004-ST (supra). In this connection, it was further urged that there was no scope to press into service Section 73 (1) ibid since there was no fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of any fact; they had voluntarily paid the service tax in the year 2008 itself and hence, there was no justification for invoking proviso to Section 73 (1) ibid. 6. Per contra Smt. Rajni Menon, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 7. The Revenue is not disputing the fact of payment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... below sub-clause (zzc) of Section 65 (105) with retrospective effect from 01.07.2003, which reads thus : "Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression 'commercial training or coaching centre' occurring in this subclause and in clauses (26) (27) and (90a) shall include 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 organization 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." 9. It is therefore clear fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifications and the factual matrix of the Appeal reduces the core issue to examine whether the certificate issued by the Appellant which according to it, enabled its students/candidates to get employment could be treated as being issued as 'recognized by law for the time being in force'; it is also a matter of record that at para-3 of the Order-in-Original the Adjudicating Authority has recorded the statement of the General Manager to the effect that '........They give only training to students and the conduct of test and issue of certification was done by the Government of Singapore and after completion of the course and passing of the test, the students will be sent abroad by the respective manpower agencies [sic]...' 13. The above has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me being in force' also stood omitted w.e.f. 08.04.2011 by virtue of amendment vide Finance Act, 2011 (8 of 2011 dt. 08.04.2011). 14. In view of the above, we are of the view that the demand of service tax invoking the larger period of limitation cannot survive and the tax liability for the normal period alone could be demanded. With regard to penalty, as observed by us in the above paragraphs, there is no element of mens rea nor has the Revenue made out a case for recovering service tax other than the normal period and hence, the penalty under Section 78 ibid cannot stand. The Assessee has claimed, which fact has also not been disputed by the Revenue, that it had made payment of about Rs.12 lakhs prior to the issuance of the SCN which i....