P.K. Das, Judicial Member. - Common issue is involved in these appeals and, therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal.

2. The issue involved in these appeals is whether the service tax is payable/leviable on the amount of advance, i.e., lump sum payment received prior to 1-7-2003 (the date when service tax was levied on "Commercial Training or Coaching Centre"), when the service was actually rendered after 1-7-2003.

3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in providing coaching service. On 1-7-2003, service tax was introduced on "Commercial Training or Coaching Centre". The appellants were registered with Central Excise Department. It was found that the appellants collected the fees on the basis of the contracts, prior to 1-7-2003, when services were rendered from 1-7-2003. Show-cause notices were issued proposing demand of tax on the value of taxable service received prior to 1-7-2003 and services were rendered after 1-7-2003. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax along with interest in all the cases and in Appeal Nos. ST/723/07 and ST/168/06, penalty was imposed of equal amount of tax.

4. The submission of the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants, is as under:-

(a)Service contract entered and consideration paid prior to 1-7-2003 and, therefore, tax cannot be levied for service rendered after 1-7-2003. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE [2008] 15 STT 29 (Ahd. - CESTAT), Art Leasing Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. 726 of 2007, dated 29-6-2007] (Trib. - Bang.).

(b)Service tax was not payable on advance receipt during the relevant period, as there was no provisions in the Finance Act, 1994 or the Service Tax Rules for recovery of the tax against advance receipt. He drew the attention of the Bench various provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and Rules. He relied upon the Board Circular F.No. B-1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27-7-2005. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294.

(c)The Act did not provide for bifurcation of value of the service. It is his contention that only from 9-7-2004 by insertion of Explanation to rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules, it was prescribed for bifurcating the value of taxable service, received before providing of the services, which cannot apply retrospectively. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352.

(d)By Board Circular No. B.11/1/2002-TRU, dated 1-8-2002, it is clarified that no service tax will be payable on membership fee already collected, prior to the date on which new service tax on "clubs and fitness centres" has come into force. He submits that the said circular is similarly applicable in the present case.

(e)Imposition of penalty and the extended period of limitation are not applicable as the dispute relates to interpretations of provisions of law and cum-tax benefit to be extended. The learned Advocate filed written notes and compilation of relevant provision of Finance Act and Rules and case laws.

5. The learned Jt. CDR reiterates the finding of the Commissioner. She submits that service tax was levied on "Commercial Training or Coaching Centre" from 1-7-2003. She further submits that payment of service tax is linked with rendering of service. She also submits that in this case, admittedly, the appellant rendered the service after 1-7-2003 and they were liable to pay service tax on the taxable value, even which was recovered by them prior to 1-7-2003. She drew the attention of the Bench the various provisions of Finance Act and its Rules. She also filed Written Notes of argument with copy of case laws.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the case, the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and its Rules, as it stood during the relevant period are repr