LAWS(CE)-2014-5-90

SEED INFOTECH LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On May 28, 2014
Seed Infotech Ltd. Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order whereby a demand of Rs. 4,99,07,210/ - is confirmed with interest and penalty is also imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority confirmed the following demands after taking into consideration the activities undertaken by the appellant:

(2.) THE contention of the appellant, in respect of the demand which is confirmed on the ground that the appellant during the period 1 -11 -2004 to 30 -9 -2007 provided computer training service and had not paid the appropriate tax, is that the demand is barred by limitation. The contention is that under Notification No. ., dated 20 -6 -2003 the computer training institutes were exempted from payment of service tax and thereafter another Notification No. , dated 10 -9 -2004 was issued whereby the exemption from payment of service tax is granted to the vocational training institutes, computer training institute or recreational training institutes. The appellant were under the bona fide belief that the computer training is also entitled for benefit of Notification No. This Notification was further amended by Notification No. dated 7 -6 -2005 whereby the Commercial Training or Coaching by computer training institutes are specifically excluded from the Notification. During this period there are following decisions of the Tribunal, whereby the benefit of exemption was extended upto 7 -6 -2005:

(3.) APPELLANT also submitted that during the period in dispute the appellant under the Extra Ordinary Taxpayers Friendly Scheme filed a declaration and paid appropriate service tax in respect of computer training given to the corporate staff and that declaration was accepted by the Revenue. The appellant had also written a letter dated 31 -12 -2004 to the Revenue where the appellant specifically mentioned that the appellants are paying service tax in respect of computer training to professionals and corporate clients and are not paying service tax in respect of computer training to students and appellant sought clarification in this regard. This letter was duly received by the Revenue. However, no reply was received by the appellant in this regard. In these circumstances, the contention is that the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of tax is not sustainable and the demand beyond the normal period of limitation is not sustainable. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gargi Consultant Pvt. Ltd. reported in : 2013 (32) S.T.R. 654 where the Tribunal in a similar situation held that the demand is time barred after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunwin Technosolution (supra).