I2IT (P.) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has come in appeal against the order of adjudication dated 31 -3 -2009 raising service tax demand of Rs. 1,68,06,053 and education cess of Rs. 3,36,121 with other consequence of law. The demand arose on the ground that the appellant provided commercial education service as a commercial coaching centre in terms of Section 165(105)(zzc ) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65(26) and Section 65(27) of the said Act. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the period in question is May 2005 to December 2006. According to him, only education being imparted and no training being imparted, there shall be no liability following the decisions of the Tribunal as follows :

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel, education does not include training. If there is no training imparted, mere education imparted by the appellant shall not amount to any service liable to tax under Section 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act, 1994; so also his further submission is that this particular appellant has its own designed course and educates the participants according to the brochure appearing at page 43 of the appeal folder. The brochure does not say that training is imparted.

(3.) THE learned Jt. CDR, opposing all the contentions of the learned Counsel, submits that page 56 of the brochure, which is referred to by the learned Counsel at page 43 of the appeal folder, categorically shows the nature of activity carried out by the appellant was education as well as training. This is what the learned adjudicating authority dealt in page 8 of the order in para 27. The finding that the education composed training imparted brought the appellant to tax. According to the revenue, the appellant is a commercial coaching centre and provided commercial coaching and training. The entire aspect has been considered by the learned adjudicating authority while passing the order. Therefore, there should be direction for making pre -deposit.