2014 (9) TMI 1055 - AT - Service Tax

Pre-deposit - Whether the 1/3 of the amount is to be deposited for hearing the appeal or there is a change in circumstances after 01.05.2011 - Coaching classes conducted by the appellants to enable the students studying in intermediate classes to appear for entrance exams - Whether liable to service tax under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching or not - period involved is April 2011 to March 2012 - Held that - while prima facie appellant may be liable to tax question as to what are the components which go into the intermediate course and what are the components of fee that can be attributed to Commercial Training or Coaching requires a very detailed consideration. Therefore even if we hold that the service tax is liable there would still be dispute about valuation and further even the liability itself the appellants have not accepted and are challenging the same. Appellant s view is that intermediate course is the main course and Commercial Coaching is incidental. Under these circumstances we consider that if the appellant deposits an amount of 6 crores within 8 weeks and report compliance that would be sufficient for hearing the appeal. Accordingly the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of 6 crores (Rupees Six Crores only) and report compliance on 16.12.2014. - Requirement of pre-deposit of balance dues is waived and stay against recovery is granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of service tax on coaching classes under "Commercial Training or Coaching" for the period April 2011 to March 2012.
2. Applicability of exemption notifications and retrospective amendments.
3. Classification and valuation of fees for intermediate education and coaching for competitive exams.
4. Requirement of pre-deposit for hearing the appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of Service Tax:
The primary issue is whether the coaching classes conducted by the appellants for entrance exams such as EAMCET and IIT-JEE fall under the taxable category of "Commercial Training or Coaching." The period in question is April 2011 to March 2012, with a service tax demand of Rs. 33,97,36,617/- along with interest and penalties.

2. Applicability of Exemption Notifications and Retrospective Amendments:
The definition of "Commercial Training or Coaching" was amended on 01.05.2011, removing the exclusion of institutes issuing recognized certificates. An exemption notification issued on the same date exempted coaching leading to recognized certificates. The Tribunal noted that the matter had not attained finality and had been remanded by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal considered the definition and exemption notification effective from 01.05.2011, noting that the period prior to this date followed a Supreme Court directive for a partial deposit.

3. Classification and Valuation of Fees:
The Order-in-Original observed that the appellants satisfied the conditions of a Commercial Training or Coaching Center, charging fees beyond the prescribed amount for intermediate education for coaching competitive exams. The Tribunal noted the divisibility of activities: imparting intermediate education and coaching for entrance exams. The appellants argued that the fee could not be artificially split as it was a composite activity, with the core activity being formal education. They contended that the entire fee structure should not be liable to service tax. The Tribunal, however, found it incorrect to consider the composite fee as exempt from service tax, noting the need for detailed consideration of valuation and the meaning of "leading to" in the exemption notification.

4. Requirement of Pre-deposit for Hearing the Appeal:
The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 6 crores within 8 weeks for the appeal to be heard, considering the complex nature of the case and the need for detailed examination of the fee components attributable to Commercial Training or Coaching. The Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit for the balance dues and granted a stay against recovery, subject to compliance with the deposit requirement.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's order emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the appellants' fee structure and activities to determine the service tax liability. The decision to require a partial pre-deposit for hearing the appeal reflects the complexity and ongoing legal considerations surrounding the case.