Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. M.P. Water & Power Management ... vs Cce, Bhopal on 5 January, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI. COURT III SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 417 OF 2007. [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 17/ST/BPL/2007-08 dated 11.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical); Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial). 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. M.P. Water & Power Management Institute Appellant Vs. CCE, Bhopal Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Z.U. Alvi, Advocate for the appellant; Shri Sumit Kumar, Departmental Representative, for the Revenue, Coram:
Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical); Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/decision: 5th January, 2009 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. DAS:
Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant is an institute constituted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and registered under the Societies Registration Act. The appellant is undertaking activities of field studies, evaluation studies and collection of data under the project assigned by the Government agencies. Show cause notice dated 22.11.2005 was issued proposing demand of (i) Service Tax Rs. 7,67,216/-, educational cess Rs. 7,369/- on commercial training or coaching, (ii) Service Tax Rs. 84,650/- on scientific or technical consultancy and (iii) Service Tax Rs. 1278/-, educational Cess Rs. 10/- on technical testing and analysis. The original authority confirmed the demand of tax of and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of tax on commercial training or coaching. The appellants filed this appeal against the demand of tax and penalties against scientific or technical consultancy and technical testing and analysis.
3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants contested the demand of tax on merit as well as on limitation. He submits that vide Boards letter F. No. B-II/I/2000-TRU dated 9.7.2001 it was clarified that many public funded institutes receive grants or aid from the Government for conducting research/project work and no service is rendered to anyone. Hence, the question of payment of service tax does not arise. It is contended that the activities undertaken by the appellants are in the nature of research/project work. He also submits that the demand of tax is barred by limitation since by show cause notice dated 22.11.2005 tax was demanded for the period 1.7.2002 to May, 2004. He also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties as there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. The learned D.R. reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find force in the submissions of the learned Advocate on limitation. It is seen that the appellant is a registered society having no profit motive. They were undertaking the job to help the Government bodies. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties imposed under Section 80 of the Act considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The demand of tax vide show cause notice dated 22.11.2005 for extended period cannot be sustainable.
6. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the demand of tax on scientific or technical consultancy and technical testing and analysis as barred by limitation. The appeal is allowed.
(M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK