TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said Act. - ST/165 OF 2009 - S/150/2010/CSTB/C-II - Dated:- 7-6-2010 - D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER V. Sridharan and Bharat Raichandani for the Appellant. R.K. Mahajan for the Respondent. ORDER D.N. Panda, Judicial Member - The appellant has come in appeal against the order of adjudication dated 31-3-2009 raising service tax demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2009] 22 STT 189 (Bang. - CESTAT). 2. According to the learned Counsel, education does not include training. If there is no training imparted, mere education imparted by the appellant shall not amount to any service liable to tax under section 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act, 1994; so also his further submission is that this particular appellant has its own designed course and educates the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department on 18-1-2007. The learned Counsel submits that if non-taxable elements are removed, the tax liability, if any, shall be limited to Rs. 8 lakhs. 4. The learned Jt. CDR, opposing all the contentions of the learned Counsel, submits that page 56 of the brochure, which is referred to by the learned Counsel at page 43 of the appeal folder, categorically shows the nature of activity carr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of record of adjudication. Therefore, the certification was called for from the appellant. Taking this certification, prima facie it is proper to come to a conclusion that the appellant should not unduly suffer due to non-taxable element included for levy. At this stage believing the averment of the learned Counsel that tax liability may be limited to Rs. 8 lakhs as argued by appellant afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
