2018 (4) TMI 1401 - AT - Service Tax

Taxability - Commercial Training & Coaching Services - Business Auxiliary Service - input services - Held that - The approved Courses and/or Degrees or Diplomas granted under various Government approved Institutes or Universities, courses are exempted from the levy of service tax where the institutes have granted degree or diploma recognized by law - the demand under the head Commercial Training & Coaching set aside. Business auxiliary service - Held that - appellant have provided service to the educational Institutes/Universities which is not a commercial activity - no service tax is payable under the category of BAS as the service tax is dutiable on the person who provides such services to promote/support the business of another - demand set aside. Input tax credit - Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - the invoices in question do not confirm the requirements under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules - appellant have demonstrated sample(s) copies of such invoices during the course of hearing, all the required information being-name, address, registration number, etc., type of the service tax is payable thereon, etc. are given - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability under "Commercial Training & Coaching" and "Business Auxiliary Service"
2. Disputed input tax credit

Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability under "Commercial Training & Coaching" and "Business Auxiliary Service"
The appeal addressed the taxability under the heads of "Commercial Training & Coaching" and "Business Auxiliary Service." The appellant had provided computer training under full accreditation granted by the DOEACC Society. The Tribunal noted that institutes offering courses recognized by law are exempt from service tax. Consequently, the amount under Commercial Training & Coaching was set aside under relevant sections of the Finance Act. Regarding the Business Auxiliary Service tax demand, it was found that the appellant conducted online examinations for educational institutes without engaging in commercial activities. Thus, the Tribunal held that no service tax was payable under the Business Auxiliary Service category.

Issue 2: Disputed input tax credit
The dispute over input tax credit amounting to ?1,14,824 from July 2008 to April 2012 was examined. The impugned order disallowed the input service credit under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 due to the appellant's failure to prove the correct utilization based on invoices. However, during the hearing, the appellant's counsel presented sample copies of invoices demonstrating compliance with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules. The invoices contained all necessary information such as name, address, registration number, and details of the service tax payable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting the appellant consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues of taxability under "Commercial Training & Coaching" and "Business Auxiliary Service" and the disputed input tax credit, providing detailed reasoning for each decision.