9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds to explain the difference, the appellant did not submit the required data and therefore it appeared to the Department that assessee has reflected lower turnover/taxable value and the same appeared to be in the nature of consideration received for providing taxable service liable to service tax and accordingly a demand of Rs. 51,57,024/- was raised invoking proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994. 3. On adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority examined the defence submissions and various documents submitted in the course of adjudication like Tripartite Agreement, list of schemes/projects, work orders etc., and also examined eligibility for the exemption entry no. 9A of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. After going through the details of the notification, he, interalia, observed that the appellant have not submitted any document to substantiate the claim that they are assessment agency or approved training partner of National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) and the fact that the project in relation which the Tripartite Agreement has been made also did not appear to be the umbrella project for various projects in respect of which the appellants have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), upholding the order of the Adjudicating Authority. He points out that the reasons why Serial No. 9A of notification was not extended to him has been clearly spelt out in the adjudication order. The appellant have not been able to demonstrate that they are covered within the scope of the said notification. In so far as the ground of this demand being based only on the difference between ITR and STR, he submitted that the appellant themselves had not provided any clarification with regard to the difference and since they were registered for providing commercial training and coaching service, it was a reasonable presumption by the Department that they had provided taxable service. In so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, he submitted that detail reason has been given by the Adjudicating Authority for invoking the extended period and also the fact that the appellant had not furnished any information and that they had clearly shown nil/zero in the column mentioned for indicating any exempted service in the STR. Therefore, in the facts of the case, it has been rightly invoked. He has relied on various judgments in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the submission of the appellant that since the demand itself has been made solely on the basis of difference between the Income Tax Return/Form - 26 AS and Service Tax Return, it cannot sustain, as held by Co-ordinate Benches in catena of judgments in this regard. It is an admitted fact that the show cause notice proposing the demand was based on only difference noticed between sale of services shown in ITR/Form - 26 AS for the year 2015-16 and gross consideration declared in the ST-3 return. The Department has not carried out any independent investigation to establish that they were engaged in providing taxable service. Moreover, the quantum of taxable service was not worked out in accordance with the valuation rules. Though, admittedly, the appellants have claimed certain exemption notification in the course of adjudication, it does not take away the fact that the show cause notice itself was purely based on the difference between these two documents referred supra. Merely, because the Department has sought certain information from the appellant which was not provided by the appellant, it cannot be presumed by the Department that they were engaged in providing taxable service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtnership Certificate and/or Agreement shall have the right to use NSDC branding and can claim benefit of NSDC affiliation. He noted that the assessee has not submitted any document or claim that they are NSDC/SSC approved training partner. He has also relied on the fact that the reliance placed on the Tripartite agreement, which he considered as loan agreement, is only to provide assistance to implement the project "Yuvamitra", which was imparting skill training programme for rural and urban youth and that no where it is mentioned that it was an approved training programme of NMDC. He has also proceeded to examine the list of 21 projects/schemes, as claimed to have been executed by them, in relation to imparting skill training programme under NSDC and though he admitted that apparently these projects/schemes were in relation to skill development programme implemented by different Central Government/State Government and other agencies, no evidence/documents/information was provided to show that these projects were covered under the eligible category of the exemption i.e. projects/schemes in relation to any of the services specified viz. National Skill Development Programme implemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the orders have been obtained by the Datapro from the central, state governments and other agencies from time to time. Therefore, there is a link between the skill training programmes provided and the training programme awarded by various central, state governments and other agencies under various schemes. On going through further documents, we find that some of these work orders have been issued by state governments in terms of various skill training component of programmes in terms of National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM), which is administered by Ministry of Urban Development and Employment (MoUD). We have also seen that some of the work order is from certain state government corporation under SDT and said programme for SC and ST sponsored by OSFDC. The claim of appellant that they have provided skill training in terms of over 21 projects/schemes can also not be brushed aside as these schemes also have skill development component. 16. We find that it is on record that the appellants have provided certain skill training including computer literacy etc., to upgrade the skill of the students and making them ready for employment. This is not being disputed that they were not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through private sector participation. They are also engaged in implementation and facilitation of Central and State Government Schemes including the schemes of other institutions, Central Government and State Government, including Ministry of Urban Development and Improvement (MUDI). 18. The Adjudicating Authority has denied this exemption on the basic ground that they have not been able to produce any certificate of their being an approved training partner of NSDC and that their name is not appearing in the list of approved partners, therefore, a plain reading of notification would debar them from the benefit of said notification at serial no. 9A. We find that, it is not in dispute that NSDC is providing, interalia, soft loans at concessional rate of interest only for the purpose of skill development or building training capacity consistent with their objective to partner with Central and State Governments for creating and developing favourable eco system for skill development. In the present appeal, from the loan agreement itself it is apparent that the soft loan has been extended, for specific skill development programmes to be conducted by the appellant. Various other documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Serial No. 9A of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. 19. A great deal of reliance has been placed by the Revenue on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Dilip Kumar and Company [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)] to support their grounds that the notification has to be given strict interpretation and in case there is any ambiguity the benefit has to go to the Revenue and not to the appellant. We find that there is no ambiguity as such as the scope of notification covers partners of NSDC including funded and non-funded partner and also the nature of work is either in terms of the programme approved by the NSDC themselves, which in this case is apparent from the soft loan agreement or in terms of various schemes of state governments which are also implemented or supported by NSDC to the extent of skill development component. We further note that this entry is primarily an entry to extend benefit to any training programme being provided by any organisation, who are engaged in skill development leading to employability of the targeted group in the country, as long as there is a nexus directly or indirectly between the activities being performed by the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra - (1968) 2 SCR 154 at 162,163]. 24. This being the case, it is obvious that the beneficial purpose of the exemption contained in Section 3(1)9b) must be given full effect to, the line of authority being applicable to the facts of the cases being the line of authority which deals with beneficial exemptions as opposed to exemptions generally in tax statutes. This being the case, a literal formalistic interpretation of the statute at hand is to be eschewed. We must first ask ourselves what is the object sought to be achieved by the provision, and construe the statute in accord with such object. And on the assumption that any ambiguity arises in such construction, such ambiguity must be in favour of that which is exempted. Consequently, for the reasons given by us, we agree with the conclusions reached by the impugned judgments of the Division Bench and the Full Bench." 21. Thus, placing reliance on this judgment in the present appeal, the benefit of entry no. 9A of notification can be extended to the appellant in the given factual matrix. Therefore, on this ground also the demand will not sustain. 22. Since, the demand is not su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
