CARRIER POINT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR
LAWS(RAJ)-2017-9-137
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 07,2017

Carrier Point Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal [2009 (14) S.T.R. 34 (Tribunal)] whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the assessee confirming the order of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, dated 1-8-2006 whereby the appellants were directed to pay tax for the services rendered after 1-7-2003.
(2.) This Court while admitting the matter has framed the following substantial questions of law : D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 11/2009 admitted on 16-3-2009 "Whether the clarification dated 5-11-2003 issued by Tax Research Unit (TRU) was ultra vires, null and void and beyond authority delegated under section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in giving interpretation and authority to collect tax prior to the date of levy, contrary to the provisions of Sections 66, 67, 68, 69 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rules 4 and 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994?" D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 12/2009 admitted on 16-3-2009 "Whether the clarification dated 5-11-2003 issued by Tax Research Unit (TRU) was ultra vires, null and void and beyond authority delegated under section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in giving interpretation and authority to collect tax prior to the date of levy, contrary to the provisions of Sections 66, 67, 68, 69 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rules 4 and 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994?" D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 18/2013 admitted on 28-9-2016 "Whether Service Tax can be levied on the amount received prior to date of levy when registration and invoice could be raised to collect indirect tax and provisions of Provisional Collection Act were applicable and Section 66 of the Act imposed the levy w.e.f. 1-7-2003? Whether treatment of service under the head of Commercial Coaching Centre and franchisee service on the same issue by the Department can be held to be suppression on the part of appellant and the demand tenable under both the heads simultaneously?"
(3.) The facts of the case are that the assessee is running coaching classes. They have entered into a concluded contract prior to April of every year for collecting fees for the whole year. It goes without saying that for the services which are rendered after 1-7-2003, the fees are received.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.