2018 (3) TMI 638 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Training in software and systems – Department took the view that these services provided would attract levy of service tax under the category of Commercial Training and Coaching (CTC) and Franchisee Service – Held that: – the cost of the books supplied by the appellant will have to be deducted for the purposes of arriving at the net tax liability. However, neither of the show cause notice have given any separate break-up of such cost of the books. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to cause verification from the balance sheets and other data that may be provided by the appellant to work out such cost and to arrive at net tax liability.
–
Penalty – Held that: – penalty not warranted and is set aside.
–
Appeal disposed off. – ST/Misc./41631/2017 and ST/756/2010 – Final Order No. 40584 / 2018 – Dated:- 7-3-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri J. Shankar R
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er dated 30.8.2010, the Commissioner confirmed the tax liabilities imposed, however, extended the benefit of availment of input service credit on input services and also extended cum-tax benefit. He, however, disallowed claim of the appellant for abatement of the cost of books supplied as course materials. The appellant is now in appeal only on the disallowance of abatement of the cost of books supplied by them. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, ld. counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman places reliance on the Tribunal s decision in Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2013 (32) STR 379 (Tri. Del.) which held that the Board Circular dated 20.6.2003 is misconceived, illegal and contrary to statutory exemption notification and that the value of course materials require to be granted benefit of the abatement. The ld. counsel also prays for setting aside the penalty. He refers to the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant s own case, for a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ale of the books. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The demand proposed in show cause notice dated 26.9.2008 has been based on the data provided by the appellant themselves vide their letters dated 25.4.2008, 1.8.2008 and 18.8.2008. So also it is seen that the show cause notice dated 13.10.2009 proposes demand based on the details furnished by the appellant vide their letter dated 14.8.2009. As indicated from annexure to show cause notice and based on these letters, we find that there is no break-up of the cost of the books sold by the appellant. At the same time, we find that the appellant has provided copies of profit and loss account at the stage of adjudication and have also annexed them in page 62 of the appeal book which separately indicates the cost of books and materials. In the circumstances, we find that the ratio of Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) will have to be applied to the present appeal and that notwithstanding Board s Circular dated 20.6.2003, the cost of the book
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =