Commissioner, Cgst Delhi West Commissionerate v. Dewsoft Overseas Private Limited

order."

¶18Since the taxability is no longer an issue for consideration in this case, the question as to whether the Respondent provided services or not post the year 2009, would be a factual dispute based on the analysis of the documents. Obviously if the Respondent was not rendering any services post 2009, service tax would not be liable to be paid.

¶19The CESTAT has also noted that for the subsequent yearsi.e., 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Department has in fact accepted and not challenged the decision that service charge would not be payable.This Court is therefore of the view that there is no substantial question of law that arises in the present appeal.

¶20The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RENU BHATNAGAR JUDGE DECEMBER 2, 2025/kp/ss

* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 2nd December, 2025 Uploaded on 3rd December, 2025 + SERTA 27/2025 & CM APPL. 70275/2025 COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI WEST COMMISSIONERATE .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr. Priyatam Bhardwaj, Ms. Garima, Kumar and Mr. Avinash Shukla, Advs. Versus DEWSOFT OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashish Chauhan, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 70273/2025 (condonation of delay) 2. This is an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the affidavit of appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 70276/2025 (condonation of delay) 3. This is an application for seeking condonation of delay in re-filing of appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 70274/2025 (exemption) 4. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. SERTA 27/2025 & CM APPL. 70275/2025 5. This is an appeal challenging the decision of the Customs Excise &Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT') dated 19th April, 2024 (hereinafter, 'the impugned order') by which the Order-in-Original dated 30th June, 2014, has been modified by CESTAT. 6. The Respondent was offering certain training by providing CDs, DVDs and e-books to customers. The issue arose as to whether with these materials that were being sold by the Respondent, the accompanying services were also provided or not and whether the Respondent was liable to pay service tax in respect of the same or not. 7. The facts of the case have been captured by CESTAT in the impugned order in paragraph 2 which reads as under: "2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in supply of products (CD, DVD, e-books) through which customers of any age group could gain knowledge in the fields of language, Computer applications, managerial skills, entrepreneurship skills, etc. For the period 2001 to 2009, the Appellants extended courses to its customers through online and offline (self- owned, centres and through authorized training centres). The courses involved online access to reading material, teaching through a website allowing interaction with experts and other students, conducting of tests, etc and for providing the courses, the Appellant raised an invoice on its customers which carried line items, namely, (i) online software lease: (ii) website space lease: (iii) online education; and (iv) university fund. Service tax was collected and paid only on the component of 'online education'. Thereafter, from April, 2009, the Appellant converted its business model to supply of CDs, DVDs, e- books, power-point presentations, etc., no interactive sessions were conducted. The course material was merely purchased by the customers/students Further, courses were no longer conducted by the authorized training centres. Since only goods were supplied carried the course material, the Appellant stopped collecting and depositing service tax." 8. A total of six show cause notices were issued to the Respondent. The details of the said show cause notices are as under: 9. In respect of these SCNs the stand of the Respondent was that their business model had changed with effect from April, 2009 and only material/ content was being provided in the form of e-books, CDs, DVDs and power point presentations. After 2009, no training was rendered by the Respondent through any authorized training centres. Hence, the case of the Respondent was that post 2009, no service tax would be liable to be paid, since no service was being provided by them. 10. The CESTAT, in its impugned order, noticed that this issue was not in dispute and the question is whether after 2009, service tax was liable to be paid or not. 11. In respect of