2008 (2) TMI 66 - AT - Service Tax

Assessees s appeal rejected for non-compliance with pre-deposit order assessee not excludible from ambit of commercial training/coaching center because educational programmes provided by appellant are not recognized by law prima facie case is not in favour of appellant hence Comm.(A) was justified in directing the appellant to pre-deposit the amount - On such deposit, the deposit of penalty will be waived & appeal shall be decided on merits by Comm. (A)after giving opportunity of hearing

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance of pre-deposit order leading to dismissal of appeal.
2. Interpretation of Service Tax provisions regarding commercial training or coaching centers.
3. Recognition of educational qualifications by statutory bodies.
4. Commissioner (Appeals) not deciding on merits due to non-compliance with pre-deposit order.
5. Dismissal of appeal with direction to deposit the required amount for further consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the appellant's appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order issued earlier. The appellant failed to deposit the specified amount as directed, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal by the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was a consequence of the appellant's non-compliance with the earlier order, which had not been challenged. Despite the possibility of dismissing the appeal solely on this ground, the Tribunal decided to provide a brief order addressing the case's controversy.

2. The dispute centered around Service Tax concerning the appellant's claim as sponsors of universities providing educational programs and training. The appellant argued that it should be excluded from the definition of a commercial training or coaching center under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to its status as a registered society with universities. However, the Additional Commissioner found that the appellant's centers collected substantial fees and did not have qualifications recognized by relevant authorities, making them ineligible for the exclusion clause.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged that the case required an examination of records, but the Commissioner (Appeals) did not delve into the merits due to the appellant's failure to pre-deposit the amount. Without finding a prima facie case in favor of the appellant, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to direct the pre-deposit.

4. During the hearing, the Tribunal rejected the stay application, emphasizing that the appellant must comply with the pre-deposit order. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal with a directive for the appellant to deposit the specified amount within two months to waive the penalty and allow the appeal to be decided on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) after a hearing.

5. The Tribunal concluded the judgment by disposing of the appeal in the specified terms, highlighting the importance of complying with the pre-deposit order for further consideration of the appeal on its merits.