CCE Vs. TARGET INSTITUTION OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue filed this appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set -aside in exercise of power under Section 80 of the said Act.

(2.) AFTER hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) set -aside the penalty on the ground that appellants were providing coaching service and were not aware the service tax liability on them. But, they recorded all the fees in their accounts and admitted the service tax liability subsequent to visit of officer and discharged service tax liability before issue of the show cause notice.

(3.) LEARNED DR submits that the respondent obtained registration on 27.07.2004 and the officers conducted search on 9.2.2005 and thereafter, the respondent paid the tax for the period 8.12.2003 to 21.12.2004 in the month of February 2005 and March 2005. The learned Advocate submits that service tax was levied on coaching centre and there was dispute of levy of service tax on certain commercial coaching centre. I find that the respondent obtained the registration on 27.7.2004 and did not pay the tax and failed to file return. But they recorded the fees in their records. So, there is no material for suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax and penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not justified.