By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, NOV 30, 2018: THE appellant is registered under the category of "Technical Testing and Certification Service".

During audit for the period 2004-05 to 2006-07, the officers observed that there was difference between figures reflected in thefinancial accounts maintained by the appellant vis-à-vis the taxable value shown in the respective ST-3. It was also noticed that the appellant was providing "Commercial Training and Coaching service" but had not registered with the Department.

SCN followed and in adjudication the Commissioner confirmed the Service Tax demand of Rs.68,19,017/- in respect of "Commercial Training and Coaching service" and Rs.1,13,003/- against the issue of alleged suppression of taxable values.

The above amounts and interest paid before adjudication was appropriated and the penalties u/ss 76, 77 & 78 waived by invoking s.80 of the FA, 1994.

The appellant is before the CESTAT and contends that in absence of suppression of facts on the part of the appellant, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the adjudged demand and accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

The Bench observed that the adjudicating authority had confirmed the service tax demand under "Commercial Coaching and Training Service" by concluding that the training is conducted in the subject of gemology, which is not related to sports; that the said training is purely commercially oriented inasmuch as the appellant had collected consideration in the form of fees from the participants for imparting the skills in the field of diamonds, jewelry and stones; and that the said training programme undertaken by the appellant was not meant for the purpose of issuance of Degree or Diploma or any qualification, recognized by law;that the benefit of Notification No. 24/2004-ST is not available as the appellant is not a vocational training institute.

Furthermore, in the matter of invocation of extended period, the Commissioner, in the impugned order, held that the appellant did not disclose the fact of they providing such service; that since the appellant had furnished the information in the month of January 2011 and thereafter, the SCNs were issued within the normal periodand, therefore, the same are not barred by limitation of time.

As regards the differential tax demand in respect of "Technical Inspection and Certification service", the same was confirmed by the adjudicating authority based on the report submitted by the Additional Commissioner (Audit), which was prepared by reconciling the figures reflected in the Profit and Loss Account vis-à-vis reflected in the ST-3 returns.

The CESTAT further observed that in the grounds of appeal the appellant had not adduced any documentary evidences to refute the charges leveled against them.

Concluding that the impugned order had considered both factual and legal issues at length and arrived at the conclusion andthe same could not be disturbed without proper substantiation, the same was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-3605-CESTAT-MUM)