9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Supdt. (AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per Bench: Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 2. The facts of the case are that the present appeals have been filed by the appellants against the Revision Case Nos.03 & 04/ST/Sec.84/Commissioner/2008 both dated 27.03.2008 both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & S.Tax, Patna, wherein h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x dated 04.02.2004, wherein the effect of Notification was extended till 30.06.2004. In effect, no service tax was payable on the services provided by the Computer Training Institute till 30.06.2004. 3. The Government of India vide Notification No.24/2004-ST dated 10th September, 2004 withdrew the exemption granted to the Computer Training Institute w.e.f. 10th September, 2004. This Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. 5. The ld.DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue has contended the fact that during the period in question, this was a liability on the appellant for payment of service tax on the services provided by them and accordingly the tax was correctly demanded by the original adjudicating authority. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices provided by them. These views have been held by various judicial pronouncements that where-ever there was confusion about the taxability of service, the imposition of penalty is not warranted. 7. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that in view of various Notifications issued regarding taxability of the service tax, which is not the case for imposition of penalty, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
