2019 (1) TMI 376 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - Commercial coaching or training Services - amount of concession in the name of scholarship given by the appellant to its various students - non-monetary consideration - Section 67 of the Finance act, 1994 read with Rule 3 of Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 - Held that - The matter is no longer res-integra as decided in appellant own case M/S RESONANCE EDUVENTURES PVT. LTD., SHRI R.K. VERMA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S ALIEN CAREER INSTITUTE VERSUS CCE & ST, JAIPUR 2017 (11) TMI 1276 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that There are no reason to consider the concessional portion of fee which is as per the pre-declared publicity material, as part of non-monetary consideration requiring addition to the monetary consideration to arrive at the gross value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant should have paid Service Tax on the normal fee charged from students who received scholarships.
2. Validity of the demand confirmed against the appellant under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Imposition of penalties under Section 76 and Section 77(2) on the appellant.
4. Interpretation of Section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding the valuation of taxable service.
5. Applicability of the scheme for scholarship/discount/fee concession offered by the appellant to all students.
6. Consistency of the Tribunal's decision with the case law in the appellant's own case.

Analysis:
1. The issue revolved around whether the appellant should have paid Service Tax on the normal fee charged from students who received scholarships. The department argued that the scholarship amount was a non-monetary consideration, requiring the normal fee to be considered as the value of service for tax purposes. However, the Tribunal found that the scholarship was a bonafide business transaction, and there was no element of non-monetary consideration involved. The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the appellant's own case, where it was decided in favor of the appellant on similar grounds.

2. The demand confirmed against the appellant under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal held that the orders-in-original lacked merit and set them aside, ultimately allowing the appeals.

3. Penalties were imposed on the appellant under Section 76 and Section 77(2). The Tribunal found that the penalties were not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case, further supporting the appellant's position.

4. The interpretation of Section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was crucial in determining the valuation of taxable service. The Tribunal clarified that the gross amount charged by the service provider in the normal course of business to the service recipient should be considered for valuation, emphasizing that the fee received from students entitled to scholarships constituted the gross amount charged by the appellant.

5. The scheme for scholarship/discount/fee concession offered by the appellant to all students was analyzed. The Tribunal noted that the concession was part of a pre-notified criteria available to all students seeking admission, and it was a bonafide trade practice aimed at promoting the appellant's business.

6. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with the case law in the appellant's own case, where similar issues were addressed, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. This consistency in decisions further strengthened the appellant's position in the present case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the orders-in-original, allowing the appeals, and deeming the penalties imposed as unsustainable in the given circumstances. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the gross amount charged by the service provider in the normal course of business for the valuation of taxable service, emphasizing the bonafide nature of the appellant's scholarship scheme and trade practices.