TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dant to falsify that VEIL was collecting money in the name of tuition fee for Commercial Coaching. There is no denial that Commercial Coaching was being provided and that VES couldn t provide the same. There is also no denial to the fact that respondent VEIL was separately incorporated company though having similar management as that of VES. There is no dispute that imparting of coaching for competitive examinations such as IIT/JEE, AIEEE etc is a taxable service in terms of Section 65(26)of Finance Act 1994, the findings of Commissioners in Order under challenge are in total ignorance of the evidence on record rather are held to be purely presumptive and is based on the probabilities to just accept the submission in defence. On the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance with law. The Tribunal also directed the appellants to produce all records as that of requisite ledgers etc. before the said adjudicating authority to show that the amount received by the appellant was not meant for providing Commercial Coaching Service and commissioner was required to pass an order after examining those records and the contentions of the appellant in accordance with law. Pursuant to said directions of remand that the order-in-original 21/2010 dated 10th May 2010 has been passed holding that the demand made against the respondent/assessee is not sustainable. Neither interest was levied nor penalty was imposed. Being aggrieved of the said order, Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri P.Amare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rently failed to appreciate the fact that both VEIL VES are one and the same. They have merely forged bills in order to evade payment of duty. Hence, the order holding that VEIL is not liable to pay service tax is liable to be set aside. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be allowed. Revenue relies on the following case laws: 1) Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee Vs CCCE ST Guntur [2019-TIOL-2286-CESTAT-HYD-LB] 2) CC Mumbai Vs M/s Dilip Kumar Company Ors [2018-TIOL- 302-SC-Cus-CB] 3. None appeared for the respondents. Present is an old appeal and there are several adjournment requests and absence of respondents. On 05.09.2022 it was directed that if the respondent fails to appear on the next date of hearing the appeal will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly is prayed to be dismissed. 5. After considering the rival contentions, of the parties, perusing the entire record, we observe the following to be admitted facts of the case. VElL was a company incorporated under the Companies Act by the managing committee of VES to own/create infrastructural facilities. VES was a non-profit making organization registered under the Societies Registration Act to impart education/knowledge having recognition from AP State Government, CBSE and other statutory bodies. VES and VEIL are inter-related. VES could not impart commercial coaching. Both VES and VEIL are under common management and in the eyes of the government authorities VEIL was also providing necessary infrastructural faciliti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the opinion that said oral submission is not sufficient to falsify the document in the form of receipt regarding collection of money by VEIL/respondent in the name of tuition fee for providing commercial coaching. 7. These findings are sufficient for us to hold that findings of Commissioner in the order under challenge are merely presumptive in nature. The adjudicating authority has categorically recorded that VES being a non-profitable organization was not allowed to run the classes for imparting commercial coaching but in addition to their regular curriculum they were giving coaching in competitive examinations and were raising bills in the name of VEIL. The Commissioner has categorically recorded in para 11 as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g becomes absolutely redundant to falsify that VEIL was collecting money in the name of tuition fee for Commercial Coaching. There is no denial that Commercial Coaching was being provided and that VES couldn t provide the same. There is also no denial to the fact that respondent VEIL was separately incorporated company though having similar management as that of VES. 8. There is no dispute that imparting of coaching for competitive examinations such as IIT/JEE, AIEEE etc is a taxable service in terms of Section 65(26)of Finance Act 1994, in view of the above discussion, we hold that the findings of Commissioners in Order under challenge are in total ignorance of the evidence on record rather are held to be purely presumptive and is based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
