9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law:- "1. Has not the Hon'ble CESTAT fallen in error in holding that the respondent is not a commercial concern ignoring the explanation inserted to Section 65(105)(zzc)? 2. Has not the Hon'ble CESTAT fallen in error in ignoring the judgment of the Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of Great Lakes Institute of Management Ltd. V. Commissioner of S.T., Chennai [reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 305 (Tri.LB)? 3. Has not the Hon'ble CESTAT erred in holding the courses of the respondent as recognized by law on the basis of the Government Orders relied upon by the respondent?" 2. The appellant/department issued show cause notices dated 05.02.2008 and 13.10.2008. In the show cause notice dated 05.02.2008, the Department proposed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the CESTAT in the case of Great Lakes Institute of Management Ltd. V. Commissioner of S.T., Chennai reported in [2013 (32) S.T.R. 305 (Tri. LB)] is wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. We need to remember that the respondent is a Government Aided Polytechnic College and the courses which have been conducted are part of an initiative under the Canada-India Institutional Cooperation Project. This project was conceived for the purpose of upliftment of the downtrodden, the have-nots and to provide them a source of livelihood. In our considered view, the Commissioner carefully considered the factual position, the circular of CBE&C bearing Circular No.107/1/2009 S.T. dated 28.01.2009, Circular No.137/1/2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been shortlevied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the Central Excise Officer within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with service tax. The period stipulated under Section 73(1) viz., "one year" was substituted by eighteen months by Finance Act, 2012 dated 28.05.2012. The period in dispute in the instant case falls prior to the amendment. Therefore, if the Department was of the view that service tax has not been levied or paid by the respondent, they could have invoked Section 73(1) within one year from the relevant date. 9. Admittedly, this was not done and the Department seeks to invoke proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act. The proviso provides f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
