2013 (6) TMI 562 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial training or coaching service - The appellant are a society registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 and are engaged in organizing various courses in clinical medicine in collaboration with Cranfield University, U.K. - Held that - though the appellant have pleaded that they had been conducting courses in affiliation with Guru Jambeshwar University, Hisar; Dr. M.G.R. Education and Research Institute (Deemed university), PRIST University, Thanjavur and the degree awarded by the above universities are recognized by UGC and, therefore, the Appellant are not covered by the definition of commercial training or coaching centre and as such, no service tax can be demanded from them on the amounts charged by them from the students for the courses in clinical sciences being organized in collaboration with Cranfield University, U.K., no finding has been given by the Commissioner on this plea. In my view, this is the most important point in this case and in course of de novo proceedings, the Commissioner has to give his finding on the above plea of the appellant and if it is found that during the period of dispute, they were also conducting courses which resulted in award of degrees, diplomas, etc. recognized under the Indian laws, the appellant would be outside the purview of the definition of commercial training or coaching centre , as the same stood during the period of dispute, and no service tax can be charged from them even in respect of the courses being conducted in collaboration with Cranfield University, U.K. - Case remanded back for de-novo decision.

Issues Involved:
1. Scrutiny of activities carried out by the appellant.
2. Definition and applicability of "commercial training or coaching service."
3. Recognition of degrees awarded by foreign universities.
4. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
5. Imposition of penalties under Finance Act, 1994.
6. Service tax liability concerning IPR services received from foreign service providers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Scrutiny of Activities Carried Out by the Appellant:
The Tribunal found no substantial evidence in the adjudication order to ascertain whether a thorough scrutiny of the appellant's activities was conducted to bring them within the ambit of the law. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-examination of the allegations in the show cause notice, along with the defense reply and the evidence on record, to reach a rational conclusion and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

2. Definition and Applicability of "Commercial Training or Coaching Service":
The appellant, a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, organized various courses in clinical medicine in collaboration with Cranfield University, U.K. The department contended that these activities fell under the definition of "commercial training or coaching service" as per Section 65(105)(zzc) read with Sections 65(26) and 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, thereby attracting service tax. However, the appellant argued that they also conducted courses in affiliation with recognized Indian universities, which should exempt them from the definition of "commercial training or coaching centre" as per the Board's Circular No. 59/81/2003/ST dated 20.06.2003.

3. Recognition of Degrees Awarded by Foreign Universities:
The appellant contended that courses conducted in collaboration with Cranfield University, U.K., should not be considered under "commercial training or coaching service" since they also offered courses with Indian universities recognized by the UGC. The Commissioner did not provide a finding on this plea, which was deemed crucial for determining the appellant's tax liability.

4. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellant argued that the extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, was not invokable due to the absence of suppression of facts. They highlighted that their activities were non-profit and that the retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2010, could not justify the extended limitation period. The Commissioner was directed to consider whether the appellant's plea for seeking clarification from DGST and the cited judgments on "suppression of facts" were applicable.

5. Imposition of Penalties Under Finance Act, 1994:
The appellant contested the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, arguing that there was no intention to evade tax. They claimed that any liability arose only due to retrospective amendments, and thus penalties were not justified. The Commissioner was instructed to re-evaluate this in light of the appellant's arguments and relevant judicial precedents.

6. Service Tax Liability Concerning IPR Services Received from Foreign Service Providers:
The impugned order confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 41,7,562 in respect of IPR services alleged to have been received by the appellant from foreign service providers. However, the Commissioner did not provide any findings on this aspect. The Commissioner was directed to address this issue specifically in the de novo proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a comprehensive re-examination of all issues, including the appellant's activities, recognition of degrees, applicability of extended limitation, imposition of penalties, and service tax liability concerning IPR services. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting a fair opportunity of re-hearing to the appellant, ensuring compliance with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat Vs. Saheli Leasing Industries.

← Previous Next →