9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri M. Ravi Rajendran, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - These are appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee, M/s. Svenpa Systems against a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangaiore. M/s. Svenpa Systems runs a computer training centre as a franchisee of M/s. Aptech. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner affirmed demand of Service tax of Rs. 2,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The respondent had suppressed the relevant facts from the Department with an intention to evade payment of Service tax. The Commissioner (Appeal) had shown undue leniency by waiving the penalty u/s 78 of the Act. This part of the order was not legal and proper. Thus penalty had to be restored. Appeal No. ST/224/06 3. In the appeal filed by the assessee, it is submitted that they were training c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the computer training institutes were entitled to exemption granted to vocational training institutes. As the appellant ran the institute for vocational training sponsored by the Govt. of Karnataka and ran a franchise on behalf of Aptech, they provided training collecting the fees prescribed by the Govt. and receiving subsidy granted by the Govt. That the computer training institutes were li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raining imparted by it as a franchisee of Aptech. We find that under Notification No. 24/04-S.T. 10-9-04 the impugned activity was exempt from Service tax as the assessee had imparted computer training to educated unemployed youth under Yuva.com programme. This training equipped the candidates with skill and competence to set up their own ventures in the areas of job typing, desk top publishing, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay Service tax since 10-9-04 is correct. We also find that the assessee was not liable for penalty under Section 78 of the Act in the absence of any mala fide on their part for any failure occasioned by the uncertainty as to their liabilities. For the same reason as led the Commissioner to waive penalty on the assessee u/s 78 of the Act, it deserves waiver of penalties imposed on them u/s 76 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
