The brief facts of the case are that during the audit of the assessee’s accounts, it was found that they had provided commercial training or coaching service in the area of NCR Cheque Truncation Pilot Project to IBM and received payment from them. They had not registered themselves under the Finance Act, 1994 and had not paid appropriate service tax on the services rendered by them during the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2008. Demand of Rs. 3,51,410/- was confirmed against the assessees by the adjudicating authority, together with interest and he also imposed penalties under the provisions of 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the demand was barred by limitation as there was no material to hold the assessees guilty of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, and did not record any finding on the merits of the demand; hence this appeal by the Revenue.

2. I have heard both sides. Mere failure to obtain registration and pay service tax is not sufficient to hold that the assessees suppressed the rendering of a service. It has been the case of the assessees that what they rendered was not a taxable service but training in the field of software which does not attract service tax. There is no material on record to establish that the assessees had knowledge of the fact that they were rendering a taxable service and yet did not obtain registration and pay service tax. Every failure to obtain registration and pay service tax cannot be equated with deliberate suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Singhal Strips Ltd. - 2010 (256) E.L.T. 15 (P & H) and the judgment dated 30-4-2010 by the Hon’ble Madras High Court [2010 (255) E.L.T. 3 (Mad.)] to hold that failure to take registration is not a ground to invoke extended period of limitation and a positive act on the part of the assessee is imperative to invoke the extended time-limit. The burden of establishing suppression lies upon the Revenue and such burden has not been discharged in the present case. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.