2016 (11) TMI 1533 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - Liability of service tax - printed material supplied to the students - coaching services - Held that - in appellant's own case the issue has come up before the Tribunal in M/s Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Indore 2013 (4) TMI 527 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that sale value not to be included - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against the order-in-appeal confirming service tax on printed material supplied to students by a coaching institute.
- Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 in the context of a transaction involving a composite service.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against Service Tax on Printed Material
The appellant, a coaching institute, filed appeals against the order-in-appeal confirming the imposition of service tax on printed material supplied to students. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was regularly paying service tax and was also selling printed material at stalls and other shops. The department had confirmed the service tax on the printed material supplied to students. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides and referred to a previous decision in the appellant's own case where it was established that the transaction of selling study material to coachees/trainees was distinct and separate. The Tribunal concluded that the issue was squarely covered, agreed upon by both parties, and therefore set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Exemption Notification
The Tribunal referred to a previous decision involving Sayaji Hotels Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore, where the issue revolved around the applicability of exemption Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 to a transaction involving a composite service. The Tribunal in that case had clarified that the exemption under the said Notification could not be extended to a transaction that did not primarily involve the sale of goods. However, in the present case, the Tribunal found that the transaction of selling study material by the appellant to coachees/trainees was distinct and separate, with separate value being receipted, documented, and recorded. The Tribunal concluded that the restrictive interpretation of the Notification by the Board was unlawful and of no legal consequence. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the distinct nature of the transaction and the satisfaction of conditions set out in the exemption Notification.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal interpretations and precedents.