TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cil for Vocational Training. The management training imparted under "SS" techniques, for which the appellant had been paying service tax under "Management Consultancy Services", was alleged to be classifiable under "Business Auxiliary Services". The Department further alleged that the value of materials/posters supplied for consideration had not been included in the taxable value and that renting of premises and seminar halls, though declared under "Renting of Immovable Property Services" and "Business Auxiliary Services", was taxable under "Mandap Keeper Services". It was also alleged that the appellant had wrongly availed the threshold exemption in respect of renting of immovable property during 2007-08. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2011 and SOD dated 02.04.2012 were issued proposing service tax demands of Rs.31,67,925/- and Rs.1,53,630/-, respectively, for the periods in dispute, along with interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demands were confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and the appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) were rejected vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 326 & 327/2015 (STA-I) dated 09.06.2016.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that foreign language training had consistently been treated as exempt under Notification No. 09/2003-ST and Notification No. 24/2004-ST, read with the Board's Circular dated 20.06.2003. The appellant had claimed the exemption under the prevailing notification and had disclosed the same; hence, there was no suppression. The amendment introduced by Notification No. 03/2010-ST was also contended to be inapplicable to the appellant. Alternatively, it was submitted that language training having a recreational/hobby element was covered by the exemption. [Alliance Francaise De Delhi Vs CST 2017 (52) STR 268] C. Value from sale of books/study materials: It was submitted that the value of books/publications separately sold by the appellant could not be included in the consideration for training services, particularly where such sales were separately identifiable and were also made to persons other than students. [Kanhaiya Singh Vision Classes Private Limited Vs CST 2023 (5) TMI 769 Cestat Kolkata]. D. 5S management training: As regards training in 5S management techniques, the appellant submitted that the activity was undertaken in furtherance of its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, such as incriminating statements, invoices, contracts or other material. Any non-payment, if at all, was due to bona fide errors and lack of knowledge of the service-tax implications. The disputes essentially concerned classification, valuation and interpretation of the statutory provisions, which could not by themselves establish suppression or mala fide intent. Hence, the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not invocable. [CCE Vs Chemphar Drugs & Liniments 1989 (40) E.LT. 276 (SC) / Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs CCE, Mumbai 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (SC) / Indian Hotels Co Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2014 (36) S.T.R. 1268 (Tri-Ban)]. The ld. Counsel prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. Submissions made by the Respondent-Revenue 3.2 Smt. G. Krupa, Ld. Authorized Representative, took us through the impugned order and submitted the following on behalf of Revenue. A. Promotion of 5S Concepts: The Appellant promoted 5S concepts on behalf of ABK & AOTS, Japan and not on its own account. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aining and Other Management Seminars: Receipts from in-house training, Best 5S/TPM seminars, quality control seminars, lean manufacturing, 3MU training, Gemba Kaizen and Best 5S Practices were held taxable under Management or Business Consultancy Service. These programmes as advisory, consultancy or training activities relating to Japanese management techniques. J. Overall Finding: The Appellant failed to establish non-taxability or reimbursement wherever claimed. Accordingly, the impugned receipts were rightly classified under the applicable taxable service categories and were liable to service tax. K. The extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 has been correctly invoked and penalties correctly imposed. The short-payment came to light only during departmental audit and that the assessee had neither declared the activities in its ST-3 returns nor otherwise informed the Department. l. The ld. A.R. relied upon the following judgments in support of her submissions. i) Commissioner of S.T., Delhi Vs IILM Institute for Higher Education, [2019 (28) GSTL 118 (Tri.-Del.] and, ii) Ulhas Vasnt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....culars are the details by which such facts are elaborated or established. Different consequences may follow from the omission of material facts and material particulars. Failure to plead a material fact renders the case incomplete, as it omits an essential element of the cause of action or charge and is liable to be set aside on this ground. Such omission is fundamentally different from the omission of a particular or piece of evidence. Material particulars on the other hand are the details necessary to amplify, elaborate and refine the material facts already alleged in the Show Cause Notice. They cannot, however, in themselves be a substitute for a material fact which constitutes the very foundation of the charge. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs Assistant Charity Commissioner [(2004) 3 SCC 137], the basic rule of pleadings requires the material facts necessary to constitute a complete cause of action to be stated, and there is a distinction between material facts and particulars. [Also see: Udhav Singh Vs Madhav Rao Scindia - 1976 AIR 744, 1976 SCR (2) 246 / AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 744]. The same principle assumes greater significance in tax adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he value of the service in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006. 6.2 We find that the Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2011 is conspicuously brief and does not set out the factual foundation necessary to sustain the demand. In paragraph 5 thereof, the Department proposed classification of the activity under "Management or Business Consultancy Service" in terms of Section 65(105)(r) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the ld. Adjudicating Authority, instead of adjudicating the charge so proposed, classified the activity under "Business Auxiliary Service", apparently relying upon two lines from the appellant's reply stating that, "There was no promotion of any third party. Therefore, invoking Section 65(19)(BAS) is unjustified." Such a course amounts to introducing a new taxable category and a new factual basis for the demand at the stage of adjudication, without affording the appellant an opportunity to meet that case in the SCN. 6.3 Further, the OIO rejected the appellant's claim that Rs.74,785/- represented sale proceeds, merely on the ground that supporting documents had not been produced. There is, however, no discussion of the nature of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... eighteen months only with effect from 28.05.2012. The said amendment cannot apply to the periods covered by the present notices. Accordingly, the extended period of limitation is not invocable. 7.4 Even in respect of the demand falling within the normal period, if any, we find that the Show Cause Notice does not set out the material facts and the legal basis necessary to sustain the proposed change in classification. In the absence of such particulars, the noticee is deprived of a reasonable opportunity to meet and defend the case sought to be made against it. The adjudication order cannot travel beyond the allegations in the Show Cause Notice or cure a foundational defect therein. Consequently, the demand in respect of hall hire/rental receipts, being founded on an inadequately pleaded charge, cannot be sustained and is set aside. We hence do not feel it necessary to examine the Order in Super Electricals (supra) cited by the Appellant, which basically relates to the question of suppression of facts as during the period of dispute there was a doubt about the levy of service on the renting of immovable property. 8. Exemption for Japanese language training 8.1 Revenue's ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining institute" under clause (ii) of the Explanation to Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. Consequently, NCVT affiliation was not a condition for availing the exemption under the recreational limb. 8.4 A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in British School of Language Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2017 (4) TMI 97 - CESTAT NEW DELHI / 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 212 (Tri. - Del.)], examined an issue where the appellants were engaged in imparting coaching of English language, for a consideration. The dispute involved their liability to pay service tax under the category "commercial training or coaching service" in terms of Section 65 (105) (zzc) read with Section 65 (27) of Finance Act, 1994. Relevant part of the order is extracted below: "5. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. Admittedly, the appellants provided commercial coaching or training service as covered by the tax entry cited above. The dispute is regarding their eligibility to exemption Notification 24/04-ST dated 10.09.2004, and prior to that for Notification 9/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. The Lower authorities denied the exemption on the ground that no skill is being imparted by the appellant. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to clarify the scope of the above exemption. Imparting training in foreign language has been cited as example of a vocational training institute. However, the whole discussion in the impugned order revolves around the question whether English is a foreign language or an official language in India. Without attempting to decide the question, which was triggered by the circular rather than by the statute or the Notifications, we find that the benefit of exemption for coaching in English language stands extended by the Tribunal in some of the cases cited by appellant. But there is also a contra decision of the Tribunal, wherein the benefit stands rejected for English language classes. In this connection, we find that the Notification No.24/2004ST has been further amended vide Notification No.03/2010-ST, dated 27.02.2010 in which the term vocational training institutehas been taken to mean industrial training institute of an industrial training centre affiliated to National Council for Vocational Training. The contra decision has been delivered in the context of the amended provisions of the Notification. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Actor Prepares Vs. CST, Mumbai [20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sider the distinct question arising in the present case, namely, whether the Appellant's language courses fall within "recreational training institute" under clause (ii) of the Explanation to Notification No. 24/2004-S.T.. Those decisions are, therefore, distinguishable on facts and in the context of the exemption claimed. 8.7 We accordingly hold that the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. as amended, and the demand under this head is liable to be set aside. 9. Translation/interpretation services: The Appellant has submitted that the Show Cause Notice merely stated that translation/interpretation services were taxable under Business Support Service from 01.05.2006, without setting out the nature of the alleged taxable activity or the basis for classification. We agree. A bald statement cannot be the basis of a levy. The material facts are missing and the charge for this head, is liable to be set aside on this ground, which we do. 10. Other charges in the impugned Order. We find that the impugned Order has dealt with issues under heads such as programme/co-ordination fees, secretarial support fees, awards and trophy income, worksho....