TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its own training institute and training is provided by franchisee training institutes, the service tax is not payable by the appellant in respect of computer and non-computer training because service recipients are trainees and the service providers are franchisee training institutes. Therefore, the demand in respect of Commercial Training or Coaching Service even for the normal period of limitation is not sustainable - demand not sustainable. Consulting Engineering services - HELD THAT:- Consultancy Engineering Services were provided in respect of survey work allotted to Government Agencies. We further note that learned Counsel for the appellant had argued that the Consultancy Services were provided to Government Agencies - since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment and Central Government. The appellants also had received some consideration for installation of hand-pump under corporate social responsibility from Gas Authority of India Ltd. and also had received some consideration to create data bank for Basic Shiksha Adhikari in connection with management of organization. Both the appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 23.04.2015 through which a demand of service tax of ₹ 3,69,86,186/- was raised and on adjudication demand of service tax of ₹ 3,63,68,299/- was confirmed through the impugned Order-in-Original dated 09.02.2016. Further, the other appellant was imposed with personal penalty. She has further submitted that the said show cause notice was issued for the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Order-in-Original. 4. Having considered the submissions from both the sides and on perusal of records, we note that learned Original Adjudicating Authority through impugned Order-in-Original has confirmed the service tax demand of ₹ 3,63,78,299/- after taking into consideration that the appellants had paid service tax of ₹ 6,70,887/-. He has further imposed a penalty of ₹ 3,63,78,299/- on the appellant and also imposed various penalties under Section 77 (1) and 77 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Original Adjudicating Authority has further imposed a personal penalty of ₹ 1 lakh on other appellant. We note that learned Counsel has contended that the appellant company is a company established by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not invokable. We, therefore, set aside the demand for extended period of limitation and therefore equal penalty imposed on the appellant is also not sustainable. Further, we note from the Order-in-Original that the learned Original Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of service tax of ₹ 3,63,78,299/- and for computing the said amount prepared a table called table-10 under para 42.2 of the impugned Order-in-Original. Under the said table it can be seen that the demand upto the financial year 2013-14 is hit by limitation. Further, during the year 2014-15 the demand confirmed is in respect of only three services such as Training or Coaching Service, Consulting Engineer Service and Legal Service, we note that appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Consultancy Engineering Services were provided in respect of survey work allotted to Government Agencies. We further note that learned Counsel for the appellant had argued that the Consultancy Services were provided to Government Agencies. We, therefore, hold that since the consultancy services were provided to Government Agencies by the Government Company, therefore, service tax is not payable on the said activity. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order to the extent of confirmation of service tax of ₹ 1,641/- in respect of Business Auxiliary Service and ₹ 3,497/- in respect of Legal Service and set aside the remaining impugned order. 5. In above terms, we allow both the appeals. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
