Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 88 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre deposit - commercial coaching or training service - appellant provides various tests for evaluation of a person’s English speaking understanding and writing abilities - Held that:- unlike in a regular coaching, there is no institute, there is no contact whatsoever alleged between the students and the teacher. Prima facie, we are of the view that these activities may not fall under the category of commercial training and coaching and therefore, we deem it appropriate to waive the pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned order and stay recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal. - Following decision of SUN MICROSYSTEMS (I) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER (LTU), BANGALORE [2013 (12) TMI 867 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. Management or business consultant services - Held that:- there is no finding as to what exactly is the service received by the appellants for which they have made the payment. It was the appellant s claim that according to US GAAP requirements, when a company has subsidiaries elsewhere, the time spent for activities relating to subsidiaries has to be allocated and subsidiaries are also required to allocate payment for such time spent. He says, to fulfill this requirement, the appellant makes credit entry as per the requirement and simultaneously a debit entry is also made and in reality no payment is actually made. He drew our attention to the relevant ledger entries and we find this to be so even though it looks very strange that there is a credit and debit entry simultaneously at the same time for the same transaction and according to the appellants there is no payment made for the time of the company in US. Nevertheless, in our opinion this may not be very relevant in view of the fact that in the impugned order, we do not find any evidence or any basis for coming to the conclusion that appellants received management or business consultant service from the company in US. - there is absolutely no evidence relied upon to show that a taxable service has been rendered and there was a service provider and a receiver relationship. Therefore, prima facie, we find that the appellant has made out a case for waiver. - Stay granted.
|