2018 (11) TMI 1092 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - inclusion of value of course material supplied to appellants in assessable value - Held that - It has been held in a number of Tribunal decisions that the value of such course material is not includible in the taxable value - the decision in the case of Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Indore 2013 (4) TMI 527 - CESTAT NEW DELHI referred - the demands made in the respective SCNs on value of course material cannot sustain and will require to be set aside. Penalty - Held that - As the major amount of demand involved has already been set aside and since in respect of the balance amount conceded by the appellant, the predominant portion was already paid up by the appellant on being pointed out, penalties are also set aside. In respect of the amounts related to Franchise service and short payment conceded by the appellant, the said demands as confirmed in the impugned order are not interfered with. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Non-payment of service tax on the sale value of course material
- Non-remittance of service tax from 2007 to 2008
- Failure to pay service tax on franchise fees
- Imposition of penalties under various provisions of law

Analysis:

1. The case involved the appellants conducting software testing courses and the department alleging infractions related to service tax payments. The department claimed non-payment of tax on the sale value of course material, non-remittance of service tax from 2007 to 2008, and failure to pay service tax on franchise fees. Show cause notices were issued proposing significant demands and penalties under various provisions of the law.

2. The impugned order confirmed the demands proposed in the show cause notices, with penalties imposed under Section 78, 76, and 77 of the Act. The appellant contested some demands while conceding others, leading to the matter being heard before the Tribunal.

3. The appellant contested demands related to the value of course materials supplied to students. The arguments presented included references to CBEC Circulars, Tribunal decisions, and High Court rulings. The appellant argued that the course materials were not excludable from taxable value and that there was no intention to evade service tax.

4. The department supported the impugned order, emphasizing that the appellant deliberately structured course fees to avoid service tax liability on the value of course material. The department highlighted relevant clauses in the impugned order to justify their position.

5. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed relevant precedents. Referring to Tribunal decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal concluded that the value of course material should not be included in the taxable value. Citing specific cases, the Tribunal held that the demands related to course material value could not be sustained and set them aside.

6. As a result of setting aside the major demands, the Tribunal also annulled the penalties imposed in the impugned order. The Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the above findings, providing relief to the appellant on the issues concerning the value of course materials and associated penalties.