Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Allahabad vs M/S P.T. Education & Training Service ... on 10 January, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. IV Date of Hearing : 19.1.2011 Service Tax Appeal No. 297 of 2008 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 07-ST/ALLD/2008 dated 26.2.2008 passed by The Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) 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 : Department Authorities? CCE, Allahabad Appellant Vs. M/s P.T. Education & Training Service Ltd. Respondent
Coram : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Order Nodated Per Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. The respondents are engaged in providing the services of commercial training and coaching and collected fees from the students during the period from May 2003 and June 2003 towards the coaching to be given thereafter. Such services were to be under the Service Tax net with effect from 1.7.2003. The Revenue entertained a view that though the fee was collected prior to 1.7.2003, the coaching service was actually provided after the said period and as such the respondent is to pay Service Tax on pro-rata basis.
3. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated vide issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 20.7.2006 proposing to confirm the demand of Rs.21,933/-. The said proceeding culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand as also imposing penalties. On an appeal Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order on merits as also on limitation.
4. We propose to dispose of the present appeal on the ground of limitation itself. The Commissioner (Appeals), while holding in favour of the respondent, has followed earlier decision of the Tribunal in the same appellants unit at Vadodara (vide Final Order No. A/2173/WZB/AHD/07 dated 16.8.2007)
5. The Revenue in their memo of appeal have not submitted that the earlier order of the Tribunal in the same respondents case is not applicable. However, they have contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have followed the earlier order in the case of M/s Sachdeva New P.T. College. We find no merit in the above contention, the Tribunal having decided the issue in respect of same parties, Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to follow the said order in stead of his own earlier order in some other case. As such, we find no merit in the above said appeal of the Revenue and reject the same.
(Pronounced in Court) (ARCHANA WADHWA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) RM