2018 (10) TMI 1256 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Order - first ground urged is that the Tribunal has wrongly overturned the relief granted by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground of time bar - Held that - Upon perusal of the Final Order, it is seen that the Tribunal has discussed this aspect in para 10 and detailed findings have been given, rejecting the claim of the assessee that they were under bonafide doubt. This is a conscious decision of the Tribunal and it cannot be said that the same was taken by mistake of fact - If the assessee is aggrieved with the same, the right course of action would be to challenge the Final Order in the appropriate forum - rectification rejected. The second ground urged is that the Tribunal has failed to take note of the fact that the assessee is recognized under the Convergence Scheme and hence the courses conducted by them should be considered as leading to award of degree recognized by law - Held that - The only copy of the degree which is available on record shows that the students getting education from the assessee have been granted degree by assessee themselves. The degree, pertinently, is not issued by any University constituted under the force of law - rectification rejected. Liability of Service tax - vocational courses conducted by them i.e. Diploma in Design - period up to the date 27/02/2010 - Held that - We accept the submission of the assessee that they will not be liable for payment of Service Tax up to the date 27/02/2010 - necessary rectification is made. ROM Application allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in a tax case involving Service Tax liability for various courses conducted by an educational institute.

Rectification of Mistake Grounds Analysis:
1. The Tribunal upheld Service Tax liability for courses, rejecting relief on limitation grounds due to retrospective effect of Finance Act, 2010. Assessee argued against invoking extended period for tax liability.

2. Assessee claimed recognition under Convergence Scheme, citing approval by IGNOU, UGC, and AICTC for courses, but Tribunal rejected the claim as no document proved recognition by law.

3. Degrees awarded by foreign Universities not recognized in India were held taxable. Assessee cited a previous Tribunal decision, but lacking documentary evidence for specific courses, the claim was rejected.

4. Vocational course Diploma in Design's Service Tax liability was disputed. Exemption under Notification No. 4/2004-ST until 27/02/2010 was acknowledged, amending the Final Order to set aside the demand for Service Tax up to that date.

Final Order Analysis:
- The Tribunal's decision to reject relief on limitation grounds was upheld, suggesting challenging the Final Order in the appropriate forum for grievances.

- Recognition under the Convergence Scheme did not establish legal recognition for the courses, leading to the rejection of the claim for degree recognition.

- Service Tax liability on degrees from foreign Universities without Indian recognition was affirmed due to lack of specific course documentation, differentiating it from the previous Tribunal decision.

- Exemption for the Diploma in Design course was recognized until 27/02/2010, amending the Final Order to reflect the exemption period accurately.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision on Service Tax liability for various courses was upheld, with specific amendments made for the Diploma in Design course's exemption period. The rectification of mistake application was partially allowed, reflecting the nuanced analysis of each issue raised by the assessee in the tax case.