9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER : 1. This Appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 ("the Act") read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 10th July 2015 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. The Revenue urges only the following two questions of law for consideration : (i) Whether in the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dated 31st January 2007 and 21st October 2008 to the Respondent seeking to recover the service tax under the head "Commercial Training or Coaching Center" for the period from 1st July 2003 to 1st April 2006 and 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2008 respectively. The two notices also required the Respondent to show cause why penalty under Section 78 of the Act should not be imposed under the Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t both the Show Cause Notices were beyond the normal period of limitation and consequently, also deleted the equivalent penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act. This on the ground that the issue whether a charitable institution could be brought to tax under the Act was a debatable issue and finally came to be resolved by the Tribunal in Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee (SCEC) Vs. the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation and also the impugned order dated 10th July 2015 placed reliance upon the above order of Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee (supra) and restricted the demand in both the Notices to the extent of the demand being within the normal period of limitation and also deleted the penalty. 6. The grievance of the Revenue is the deletion of the demand beyond the normal period of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o service tax under the Act. Thus, no fault can be found in the present facts with the impugned order of the Tribunal restricting the demand only to that extent of normal period of limitation and deletion of equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Act. This as the Tribunal found on facts and on the basis of the law that the Respondent was under a bonafide belief that no service tax is payable b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
