9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 765 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - Post Graduate Programme in Public Policy and Management (PGPPM) - Post Graduate Programme in Enterprise Management (PGPEM) - Executive Post Graduate Programme in Management (EPGP) - period 01.5.2011 to 30.06.2017 - demand dated 13.10.2015 is barred by limitation or not. HELD THAT - A simple analysis of the changes effected from time to time regarding applicability of service tax to educational courses/ programmes offered by Commercial Coaching or Training centres, it is clear that such services for the period prior to 01.5.2011, was institute specific, and thereafter it became course specific. It is held by the Commissioner in the previous proceeding that the Appellant is not a Commercial coaching or Training Institute , as defined under section 65(27) of Finance Act,1994 as one of the course offered by them is recognized by law - if a Commercial Coaching or Training Institute provides both recognized and non-recognized courses, then non-recognized courses be leviable to tax. Analysing the facts and principles laid down in the case of M/S INDIAN INSTITUTE OF AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS 2013 (5) TMI 592 - DELHI HIGH COURT , it can easily be inferred that in the said case their Lordships have confronted with the issue as narrated in the facts are that the course issued by the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Training School which has been approved by DGCA for providing Aircrafts Maintenance Engineering course whether could be considered to be covered under exclusion clause of definition of Section 65(27) before 1.5.2011 and after the date under Notification No.33/2011-ST dated 25.04.2011. Analysing the approvals given by the DGCA and the courses provided by the appellant a recognised institute, it has been held that the qualification acquired by the candidates even without a license to practice, definitely be considered as a qualification recognised by law. In IILM UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOL VERSUS CCE DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA) 2017 (11) TMI 1271 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , the issues involved is that the course namely B.Sc(Hons) in Business Management Studies conducted by the appellant are recognised and degree is awarded by the University of Bradford, UK, whether liable to service tax for the period 1.7.2003 to 31.08.2009. After analysing the principle of law settled in this regard, the Tribunal held that the award of degree University of Bradford, UK be considered as recognised by law and hence, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. In the present case, learned Commissioner has consistently recorded that evidence of recognition of the said three courses by any authorities empowered/authorized in this regard, who approve such courses, making the successful candidates eligible to get an employment or qualification, so as to establish that these programmes have been recognised by law, not produced by the appellant. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that since the learned Commissioner has allowed to drop the demands against one programme viz., PGP which is specifically approved, the same is automatically be applicable to other three courses and to be considered at par with the said PGP course. The three courses conducted by the appellant would not fall under the scope of the said exemption Notification No.33/2011-ST dated 25.04.2011 or the Negative List under clause (l) of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. Besides, the appellant had commenced discharging Service Tax with effect from 01.03.2016 after insertion of Sl. No.9B and deletion of clause (l) under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. The claim of the appellant that Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017 since acknowledges such institute as an Institution of national importance and therefore, all the courses offered by the institute should be exempted, also cannot be acceptable as no such provision has been brought to our notice mentioned in the said Act. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - There has been changes in the law frequently and clarifications issued by the Board. Accordingly, during the said period, the applicability of the Notification and clause (l) of the negative list rests on the interpretation of the provisions of law, therefore, alleging suppression of fact cannot be sustained. Consequently, the demands be restricted to normal period of limitation. Since the issue involves interpretation of law, imposition of penalty is unwarranted and accordingly, set aside in both the appeals. The impugned orders are modified by setting aside penalty in both the appeals and upholding the confirmation of demands with interest for the normal period of limitation. The appeals are remanded only for the limited purpose of determination of tax for the normal period of limitation with interest. Appeal disposed off by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of service tax on Post Graduate Programme in Public Policy and Management (PGPPM), Post Graduate Programme in Enterprise Management (PGPEM), and Executive Post Graduate Programme in Management (EPGP) for the period 01.05.2011 to 30.06.2017. 2. Whether the demand dated 13.10.2015 is barred by limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of Service Tax on PGPPM, PGPEM, and EPGP: The primary issue was whether the three programs (PGPPM, PGPEM, and EPGP) are liable to service tax. The appellants argued that these programs are "Post Graduate Diplomas in Management" recognized by the Government of India and should be exempt from service tax. They cited various letters and circulars, including the Secretary, MHRD's letter dated 08.07.2014, which clarified that Post Graduate Programs in Management are exempted under Notification No.25/2012-ST and this exemption should apply retrospectively. The Commissioner, however, confirmed the demand for these programs, stating that the appellants failed to provide evidence that these courses are recognized by law. The Commissioner noted that the exemption granted to the two-year full-time Post Graduate Programme in Management (PGP) did not automatically extend to the other three programs. The Commissioner analyzed the course content and concluded that these programs are designed to enhance the skills of experienced executives and do not qualify as recognized educational qualifications under the relevant statutory provisions. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, noting that the appellants did not provide additional evidence to support their claim that these programs are recognized by law. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption is course-specific and not institute-specific. Therefore, the three programs (PGPPM, PGPEM, and EPGP) are subject to service tax for the period in question. 2. Limitation: The second issue was whether the demand dated 13.10.2015 is barred by limitation. The appellants argued that there was no suppression of facts and the issue involved a bona fide interpretation of statutory provisions, supported by clarifications issued by the Board and letters from MHRD. They cited several Supreme Court decisions to support their claim that the extended period of limitation should not apply. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting that the frequent changes in the law and clarifications issued by the Board indicated that the issue involved interpretation of statutory provisions. Therefore, alleging suppression of facts was not sustainable. The Tribunal restricted the demand to the normal period of limitation and set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants. Conclusion: The Tribunal modified the impugned orders by setting aside the penalties and upholding the confirmation of demands with interest for the normal period of limitation. The appeals were remanded for the limited purpose of determining the tax for the normal period of limitation with interest.
|
