I2It Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

Appeal No. ST/306/10

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/VSK/249/2009 dated 30.11.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

I2IT Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I Respondent

Appearance:

Shri L. Badri Narayanan, Advocate for appellant ShriA.B. Kulgad, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 05.05.2015 Date of Decision: 05.05.2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against order in appeal number P  I/VSK/249/2009 dated 30/11/ 2009.

2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are appellants herein are conducting courses in the areas of management, information technology, engineering and issue certificates of diploma, degree and post graduation for such courses conducted by them. Lower authorities have conformed the demand of service tax liability for the period January 2007 to December 2007 on a finding that the services will be covered under the category of commercial coaching or training services. The lower authorities have also conformed the demand of interest and imposed penalties under various sections of the finance act 1994.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. Both sides fairly submit that the very same issue in respect of the same appellant was in appeal before the Tribunal in appeal number ST/165/2009  MUM and was disposed of by holding that the services rendered are liable for service tax and interest thereof, but the bench has said aside the penalties imposed on the appellant. It is submitted that the said order is reported at 2014 (34) STR 214.

5. We perused the said order passed by the bench and find that the Tribunal has held that the services rendered by the appellant is taxable under the category of commercial coaching or training services. We were informed that the appellant is in appeal before the Honourable High Court of Bombay. We do not find any reason to deviate from such a view already taken by the bench accordingly, we uphold the service tax liability as confirmed and interest thereof. At the same time, we do find that in the appellants own case as cited herein above, the bench as set aside the penalties imposed on the ground that there could would be bona fide belief in not discharging the service tax liability. We find that same ratio will apply in the case in hand, accordingly, invoking the provisions of section 80 of the finance act 1994 we set aside the penalties imposed.

6. The appeal is disposed of as indicated hereinabove.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

nsk ??

??

??

??

1 3