2018 (7) TMI 1527 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of N/N. 12/2003 dated 20.06.2003 - Commercial Training & Coaching Service - inclusion of the value of study material which is provided by the respondent to various students - Held that - Advertising for various coaching programmes clearly mentions the price of books and study materials. In such factual scenario, the claim for exemption under N/N. 12/03-ST cannot be rejected. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the deduction of the value of study material provided by the respondent to students from the gross value for service tax liability under Commercial Training & Coaching Service is valid.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad involved a dispute regarding the deduction of the value of study material provided by the respondent to students from the gross value considered for the discharge of service tax liability under the category of Commercial Training & Coaching Service. The Revenue contended that the First Appellate Authority erred in allowing the deduction, stating that the exemption under Notification No. 12/2003 for standard textbooks did not apply as the study material provided was not standard textbooks. The respondent argued that similar issues had been decided in their favor by the Tribunal in previous cases. The Tribunal examined the records and found that the issue revolved around the demand for service tax liability on the study materials provided to students during a specific period.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was no longer res integra and was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal, particularly referring to a Final Order dated 23.01.2017. The Tribunal quoted paragraph 5 of the said order, which highlighted that the appellant was providing taxable services under Commercial Coaching and Training and had separate receipts for the supply of study materials, books, or kits. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's claim for exemption under Notification No. 12/2003 could not be rejected based on the factual scenario presented, where the price of study materials was clearly indicated in promotional materials. The Tribunal also cited other cases supporting the appellant's position.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that there was no reason to deviate from the view taken in the respondent's own case. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was correct, legal, and did not warrant any interference, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The judgment was delivered by the Tribunal members M.V. Ravindran and P. Venkata Subba Rao, with the order dictated and pronounced in open court.