TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly where the value of the course material (sold by a commercial or training institute) answers the description of standard text books which are priced, is illegal, un-authorised and of no effect. No notice or cognition can be taken by any authority or such un-authorised exertions by the CBEC. If this illegal and un-authorised condition, imposed on the generality of exemption granted by the Central Government vide Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6- 2003 is ignored, as it must, the assessee/appellant is clearly entitles to the benefit of the exemption. Since the value of sale of books is separately identifiable from the audited financial statements of the Appellant and there are documents to show that such sale was also made not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 24.09.2018 alleging non/short payment of service tax on coaching services on the basis of the documents seized by the department. It was the allegation of the department that the Appellant has artificially bifurcated the consideration received towards coaching services (under the head tuition fee from students) in to other categories such as Income from Bag trade, Sale of I Card, Sale of Prospectus/Form and Publication Section L. Thus, it was alleged that the Appellant is also liable to pay service tax on consideration received towards Publication Section L, major being the income from sale of publication section L. It was also alleged that the Appellant has reported less turnover in their audited financial statement for certain years an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coaching services a. CHATE COACHING CLASSES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AURANGABAD 2013 (29) S.T.R. 138 (Tri. - Mumbai) b. CEREBRAL LEARNING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., INDORE 2013 (32) S.T.R. 379 (Tri. - Del.) c. M/s Smart Value Products Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax, Noida in APPEAL No.ST/70817/2018-CU[DB] vide Final Order No. 71643/2018 dated 26.07.2018 d. PINNACLE Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH 2011 (24) S.T.R. 453 (Tri. - Del.) as affirmed by Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2017 (49) S.T.R. 277 (P H) e. RUBIC S ROSTRUM COACHING PVT. LTD. Versus C.C.E. CUS., LUCKNOW 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 258 (Tri. - All.) f. MAJOR KALSHI CLASSES PVT. LTD. Ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... role to the Board. In seeking to engraft restrictions on the generality and plenitude of the exemption granted by the Central Government, the CBEC transgressed into the domain of the Central Government under Section 93 of the Act, a course of action clearly prohibited. On the above analysis, that part of the clarification of the CBEC which engrafts a condition that the exemption notification is applicable only where the value of the course material (sold by a commercial or training institute) answers the description of standard text books which are priced, is illegal, un-authorised and of no effect. No notice or cognition can be taken by any authority or such un-authorised exertions by the CBEC. If this illegal and un-authorised condition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
