TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents to prove the otherwise - having accepted that fact; the same cannot be included in the value of the taxable service in terms of the Notification No. 12/2003- Service Tax; therefore, we find that the demand on this count is not sustainable. Salary or remuneration received by the respondent - Held that:- Neither the SCN nor the Order-in-Original give a categorical finding or evidence to show that the respondent’s contention on this count is wrong. In fact, it was for the Department to show proof to that extent rather than going by the premise that the respondents have not shown any proof to that effect. Since the Department has made the allegations, it was for the Department to prove the same - In the absence of any proof s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 6000/- seeking to levy interest and penalty under Section 75,78 and 76 of Finance Act, 1994 was issued, the Joint Commissioner vide Order No. 15/2006 dated 27.06.2006 has confirmed the demands and penalties proposed. On an appeal made by the appellants, Commissioner (A) has allowed the appellant with consequential relief. The Department has filed the present appeal against impugned OIA . 2. The appeal filed by the Department was on the grounds that on verification of the financial statements maintained by the respondents, it was seen that the respondent rendered commercial training and coaching services to another coaching center viz. M/s. Chaithanya Classes and in the Order-in-Original, it was held that it is a matter of record tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s received by Prof. P.C. Thomas was under two categories i.e. the salary for the classes fee has taken in M/s. Chaithanya Classes and the cost of the books/study materials supplied by him, they are separately shown; they also relied upon the judgment of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cerebral Learing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2013(32) STR 379 (Tri. Delhi) wherein it was held that value of cost material supplied evidence by documents is entitled to exemption. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records of the case. 6. The Authorized Representative for the Department has stated that there were no separate records to indicate the salary received by Prof. Thomas and the cost of the study material; however, we find that the SCN i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the respondent, we find that neither the SCN nor the Order-in-Original give a categorical finding or evidence to show that the respondent s contention on this count is wrong. In fact, it was for the Department to show proof to that extent rather than going by the premise that the respondents have not shown any proof to that effect. Since the Department has made the allegations, it was for the Department to prove the same. We find that no documentary evidence has been produced by the Department to show that this amount cannot be treated as salary or remuneration to the respondent, therefore, on this count; the demand of Service Tax on the respondents does not survive. In the absence of any proof shown by the Department, we find that sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
