9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 846 - AT - Service TaxCommercial Training and Coaching Institute - appellant provides coaching for preparation of competitive exams conducted by the UPSC and MPSPC - The demands were confirmed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the YCMOU is an open university and is basically a distance learning mechanism, in which the students are not expected to attend any specific college/ institute - CBEC Circular No. 59/8/2003 dt. 20.06.2003 - Held that - Clearly the Appellants are running parallel college for imparting education in degree/ diploma recognized by the law and cannot be differentiated with the other courses run by the regular courses. Letter F1-52/2000(CPP-II) dt. 05.05.2004 issued by the Joint Secretary, University Grants Commission clearly states that the Degrees/ Diplomas/ Certificates awarded by the Open University in conformity with the UGC notification on specification of degrees as equivalent to the corresponding awards of the traditional universities in India - there is no doubt that the Appellant trust running courses are equivalent to regular courses of YCMOU and there cannot be any distinction between the regular colleges and the education imparted by the Appellant. In terms of CBEC Circular No. 59/8/2003 dt. 20.06.2003 the Appellant is not liable to service tax - also reliance placed in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX., TRIVANDRUM Versus TANDEM INTEGRATED SERVICES 2010 (8) TMI 401 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , where it was held that the colleges apart from imparting education for obtaining recognized degrees/diploma/certificates, also impart training for competitive examinations, such institutes or establishments are outside the purview of Commercial Training or Coaching Institute . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the services provided by the Appellant fall under the category of "Commercial Training and Coaching Institute" and are liable for service tax. 2. Whether the educational courses imparted by the Appellant, in collaboration with Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University (YCMOU), are recognized by law and exempt from service tax. 3. The applicability of various legal precedents and CBEC Circulars to the case. 4. The issue of limitation and suppression of facts. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification as "Commercial Training and Coaching Institute": The core issue was whether the Appellant's services, which include coaching for competitive exams and other educational programs, fall under the "Commercial Training and Coaching Institute" category, thereby attracting service tax. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demands on the grounds that the Appellant's activities did not qualify as recognized courses under the law and thus were taxable. 2. Recognition of Educational Courses: The Appellant argued that they were running classes for graduation courses through YCMOU, a recognized university, and were also a study center for these courses. They provided evidence of an agreement with YCMOU and degree certificates showing their name and code number as a study center. They contended that their activities were exempt from service tax as they were imparting recognized education. 3. Legal Precedents and CBEC Circulars: The Appellant relied on CBEC Circular No. 59/8/2003 dated 20.06.2003, which clarified that institutes providing recognized degrees/diplomas/certificates are outside the purview of "Commercial Training or Coaching Institute," even if they also provide training for competitive exams. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in the case of TANDEM INTEGRATED SERVICES, where it was held that parallel colleges providing recognized education were exempt from service tax. The Tribunal also cited the Kerala High Court's decision in Mallapuram District Parallel College Association v. UOI, which held that taxing parallel colleges while exempting regular colleges was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Limitation and Suppression of Facts: The Appellant argued that there was no element of suppression, and therefore, the demand was hit by the limitation of time. However, since the Tribunal disposed of the appeal on merits, it did not record any findings on the point of limitation. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was imparting recognized education in collaboration with YCMOU and could not be differentiated from regular colleges. Based on the CBEC Circular and relevant judgments, the Tribunal held that the Appellant was not liable for service tax. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs. Final Judgment: The appeal was allowed, and the Appellant was not liable for service tax. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in court on 22/03/2018.
|
