M\/s. Apollo Computer Education Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST, Central Excise
Service Tax
2018 (3) TMI 638 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 7-3-2018
ST\/Misc. \/41631\/2017 and ST\/756\/2010 – Final Order No. 40584 \/ 2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe appellants herein are engaged in providing training in software and systems. The 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. Show cause notice dated 6.9.2007 was issued for covering the period 1.7.2004 to 31.3.2008 inter alia demanding service tax of Rs. 2,31,95,440\/- along with interest and for imposition of penalties. A subsequent show cause notice dated 13.10.2009 <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n se, 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 an earlier period vide Final Order No. 40491\/2017 dated 13.1.2017 wherein the Tribunal has set aside the penalty. Ld. counsel submits that appellant had already paid the entire dues as per their working after taking into consideration CENVAT credit as well as benefit of exemption under Notification No. 12\/2003. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ed 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 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Apollo Computer Education Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST, Central ExciseService Tax2018 (3) TMI 638 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 7-3-2018ST\/Misc. \/41631\/2017 and ST\/756\/2010 – Final Order No. 40584 \/ 2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate for the Appellant Shri … Continue reading “M\/s. Apollo Computer Education Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST, Central Excise”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10910","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. On the other hand, ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supports the impugned order. He draws our attention to para 7 and 8 of the impugned order to highlight that a lump sum is collected from the students indicating the total cost of the course materials as against the claim made by them<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Coming to the matter of penalty, we find merit since in their own case, for an earlier period, this Tribunal has already set aside the penalty. We follow the same ratio and h<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n