Misc. Order Nos. 41231-41232/2013 arising from in Application Nos. ST/Stay/209/2011 and ST/Misc./771/2011 in Appeal No. ST/300/2011. Case: Digital Magic Visual India Ltd. Vs Commr. of Service Tax, Chennai. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Misc. Order Nos. 41231-41232/2013 arising from in Application Nos. ST/Stay/209/2011 and ST/Misc./771/2011 in Appeal No. ST/300/2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri S. Viswanathan, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Parmod Kumar, Jt. Commr. (AR). |
| Judges | Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) and Mathew John, Member (T) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35F; Finance Act, 1994 - Section 83 |
| Citation | 2014 (34) STR 393 (Tri. - Chennai) |
| Judgement Date | May 14, 2013 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Mathew John, Member (T), (South Zonal Bench At Chennai)
-
The miscellaneous application filed by the Department for change of the cause title to Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai" because the appellant is under the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner.
-
The applicant is engaged in the activity of video tape production and also providing training in visual effects and animation. There is a demand against the applicant under five broad categories as under:-
S. No.
Description of Demand
Amount
1.
Non-payment of service tax for the period from April 2008 to March 2009
16,29,611/-
2.
Non-payment of service tax on Commercial Training or Coaching Service - April 2006 to March 2009
30,73,675/-
3.
Short payment of service tax for the period from April 2004 to March 2008
87,905
4.
Irregular availment of CENVAT credit
2,34,384/-
5.
Non-payment of interest on delayed payment of service tax for the period from April 2004 to March 2008
1,19,091/-
-
In the case of Item No. 1, the applicant collected the service tax but did not pay to the Department. The counsel for the applicant is not contesting the demand except to the extent of in this respect a small difference in the quantification. So is the case for demands at item Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the table above.
-
In the case of Item No. 2 which relates to service tax under the heading "Commercial Training or Coaching", his contention is that the training imparted by the applicant was actually in the field of visual effects and visual communication and animation. He concedes that such training was imparted using computers. He is claiming exemption under Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 as amended which provided exemption for training provided by a vocational training institute. He submits that the training imparted by his client qualifies as vocational training. Therefore, he prays for waiver of dues arising from the order for admission of appeal.
-
Opposing the prayer the learned AR for Revenue submits that from 16-6-2005, the Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. was specifically amended to add following proviso:
"Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to the taxable services provided in relation to commercial training or coaching by a computer training institute.";
Further an Explanation reading as under was also inserted:
''(iii) "computer training institute" means a commercial training or coaching centre which...
To continue reading
Request your trial