AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appeal is filed against order-in- appeal dated 27/07/2009 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs.81,138/- for the period March 2004 to July
2005 was sustained along with interest and penalties on the ground that the appellant provided commercial training or coaching service but did not pay
service tax thereon.
The appellant has pleaded that it is not contesting the demand on merits as the issue has been decided against it in its own case vide CESTAT order
reported at 2013 (30) STR 273 (Tri. - Bangalore). It however contended that the amount on which impugned demand has been confirmed has already
been included in the show cause notices issued by Service Tax commissioner at Hyderabad and that on the same ground, Deputy Commissioner,
Alwar had dropped similar demand noting that Hyderabad S.T. Commissionerate intimated him that the appellant's office at Hyderabad had been
issued show cause notices for the period July 2003 to March 2008 covering the entire amount received by all the branches of the appellant all over
India.
We have considered the contention of the appellant and have perused the records. We find that Alwar C.Ex & S.T. Division vide order
dt.14.6.2007 has indeed dropped a similar demand raised in respect of the appellants Alwar unit on the ground that the amount received by appellant's
Alwar unit has been included in the show cause notice issued to the appellant at Hyderabad. We find that the appellant had taken a similar plea in the
present case before the primary adjudicating authority and the Primary Adjudicating Authority (Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division
Sagar) in its adjudication order has taken note of this and also of the Commissioner ate Central Excise, Hyderabad letter dated 28/08/2008 informing
that notices issued by Hyderabad Commissioner ate covered all the amounts paid by the students enrolled in the appellant's campus and off -campus
centres located all over India although there was no branch-wise details available as the appellant submitted consolidated figures covering all the
amounts paid by the students enrolled in the campus and off-campus centres located in all over India. In view of the clear report from Central excise
Commissioner ate Hyderabad that the show cause notices issued to the appellant at Hyderabad covered the fee recovered by all the off-campus
centres located all over India, it follows that the fee recovered at Sagar was also covered therein and therefore the show cause notice resulting in the
impugned order- in- appeal was not required to be issued at the 1st place. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal is allowed.