2014 (11) TMI 658 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Classification of service - Business Support service or Commercial training and coaching service - retention of amount out of the examination fee paid by the students - Held that - In the case of commercial training or coaching centre where the student undergoes the training, it is considered that appellants have provided the service to M/s. Quint Red Wood India Consulting Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the service rendered comes under the category of business support service. In our view, the issue is debatable and contentious and therefore the amount deposited is sufficient for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Liability of the appellant for payment of service tax on commercial training and coaching service.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of the appellant's liability for service tax on commercial training and coaching services. The appellant had filed two appeals, but only one was listed initially. However, upon confirmation that the file for the second appeal was available, both appeals and the stay application were taken up together. The learned counsel highlighted that the appellant had deposited the entire service tax amount along with 50% of the penalty as directed by the Commissioner (A), which was deemed sufficient for the hearing.

The core issue revolved around the demand for service tax on the retained amount from examination fees paid by students, which was passed on to another company providing the training services. The tribunal considered whether the appellant, operating a training center where students received coaching, should be liable for the service tax, categorizing the service as business support service provided to the other company. The tribunal acknowledged the debatable and contentious nature of the issue, leading to the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement and the grant of a stay against recovery during the appeal's pendency. This decision was made based on the view that the amount already deposited sufficed for the hearing.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of service tax liability in the context of commercial training and coaching services. It emphasizes the waiver of pre-deposit due to the debatable nature of the issue and grants a stay against recovery during the appeal process. The decision showcases a balanced approach in considering the appellant's compliance with the Commissioner's directions and the complexities surrounding the interpretation of service tax obligations in such scenarios.