NARAYANA COACHING CENTRE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Chartered Accountant for appellant submits that service tax demands of the extent depicted against each period arose were as under:

(2.) Insofar as the period 2003 -04 to 2007 -08 is concerned, submission of learned C.A. is that demand is not sustainable if pleading of appellant at pages 119 & 120 of the appeal folder is considered. He submits that deposit and Cenvat credit reversal has been made much more than service tax demanded as per show cause notice for the said period and such aspect needs scrutiny to resolve the dispute.

(3.) LAST plank of argument of the appellant related to year 2010 -11. It was specifically brought out by learned C.A. that for the period 1 -4 -2010 to 31 -9 -2010, the appellant was providing 'commercial training or coaching' activity and after that period, proprietary concern of appellant was taken over by M/s. Narayana Learning Pvt. Ltd. He says that no show cause notice was issued to the appellant for the period 1 -4 -2010 to 30 -9 -2010. But the show cause notice was only issued to M/s. Narayana Learning Pvt. Ltd., for the entire financial year 2010 -11. Once no show cause notice was issued to the appellant, there was lack of foundation for adjudication to give rise to service tax demand of Rs. 2,23,16,485/ - which is unsustainable.