TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 552
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice No. V(CGST-I)15/22/Dem/EESIPL/2021-22/1578 dated 15.04.2021 proposing demand of service tax of Rs.17,59,015/- under proviso to Section 73 along with interest and proposed penalties under Section 77(1)(c) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant neither submitted any reply to the show cause notice nor attended the personal hearing. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 17,59,015/- under proviso to Section 73 along with interest under Section 75. Penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed under Section 77(1)(c) and Rs. 17,59,015/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the impugned order upholding demand on two (2) issues. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that M/s Globsyn Skill development Private Limited was an approved training partner of National Skill Development Corporation. The appellant had been engaged by Globsyn skills development Private Limited for rendering skill development courses under the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana Guidelines, 2016-20, which allowed training ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order. He contended that the law has been settled by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal that mere non-payment or non-submission of the details in itself does not trigger the extended period, whereas, there has to be positive act or omission by the taxpayer with the intent to evade payment of tax. He further submitted that the appellant was engaged in the business of providing services related to education, and therefore was under the bona fide impression that its education related services were exempt. He relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions. * Continental Foundation Joint Venture versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2007 SCC Online SC 1066] * Uniworth Textiles Limited versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2013 SCC Online SC 76] * Anand Nishikawa versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2005 (7) SCC 749] * Collector of Central Excise versus H.M.M. Limited [1995 SCC Online SC 82] 4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department submitted that Para 9A of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, inserted through Notification No. 13/2013-ST dated 10.09.2013, grants exemption from Service Tax only to skill development and v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evelopment Corporation and had earned Rs.3.14.000/-on account of the same. I reproduce the copy of the said certificate hereinafter:- "National Skill Development Corporation" Transforming the skill landscape "Certificate of Partnership This is to certify that GLOBSYN SKILLS DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED is on Approved Training Partner of National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) for the financial year 2015-16" Sd/- (Dilip Chenoy) MD and CEO date: 1" April, 2015 Place New Delhi. CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S GSDL SKILLS PRIVATE LIMITED To whom so it may concern This is certify that Edupro E-Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. was an Authorized partner/Learning center to run BFSI and other program of NSDC under Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana through GSDL Skill Private Limited (formerly non as Globsyn Skills Development Private Limited) for the FY2015-16. 6.1 It is evident from the above certificate that the appellant was not the directly authorized partner of M/s NSDC under Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana. As per the NSDC certificate M/s Globsyn Skills Development Pvt. Ltd was the Approved Training Partner of National Skill Development Corporation (NS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e than justified to conclude and also compelled to hold that every taxing statute including, charging, computation and exemption clause (at the threshold stage) should be interpreted strictly. Further, in case of ambiguity in a charging provisions, the benefit must necessarily go in favour of subject/assessee, but the same is not true for an exemption notification wherein the benefit of ambiguity must be strictly interpreted in favour of the Revenue/State. 52. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under - (1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. (2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. (3) The ratio in Sun Export case (supra) is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case (supra) stands overruled." In the instant case, since the appellant was not....