2016 (6) TMI 833 - AT - Service Tax

Taxability of commercial training and coaching - services were prospective insurance agent which was recognized under law - IPR services - disallowance of cenvat credit - extended period of limitation - Held that - Prima facie the issues are in favor of assessee - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application and appeal against Order-in-Original for demand confirmation.
2. Demand components: commercial coaching and training, IPR service, cenvat credit disallowance.
3. Appellant's arguments: previous case precedent, IPR service payment, cenvat credit disallowance.
4. Department's arguments: arguable case for IPR service, denial of cenvat credit.
5. Tribunal's analysis: sustainability of demand, IPR service payment, cenvat credit denial.
6. Decision: waiver of pre-deposit, stay on recovery of liabilities.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original confirming a demand of &8377; 3,16,54,830/- for commercial coaching, IPR service, and cenvat credit disallowance. The appellant argued based on a previous case precedent where similar demand was dropped, and contended that there was no payment for IPR service as per the agreement.
2. The Department acknowledged the favorable precedent for commercial coaching but argued for an arguable case regarding IPR service, emphasizing the transfer of intellectual property rights despite no explicit charge mentioned in the agreement.
3. The Tribunal considered the sustainability of the demand, noting the favorable precedent for commercial coaching and the lack of payment for IPR service as per the agreement. The denial of cenvat credit was analyzed, focusing on technical grounds like name discrepancies and temporary training locations not being branch offices.
4. After analyzing both sides' contentions, the Tribunal found the demand for commercial coaching unsustainable based on precedent. Regarding IPR service, the lack of payment for intellectual property rights strengthened the appellant's case against service tax liability. The denial of cenvat credit was deemed on technical grounds, with no evidence of misuse by another legal entity.
5. Considering the lack of grounds for alleging misstatement or suppression of facts, the Tribunal granted a complete waiver of pre-deposit and ordered a stay on the recovery of liabilities during the appeal's pendency. This decision was based on the appellant making a strong case against the demands raised.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented, the Tribunal's assessment, and the final decision regarding the waiver of pre-deposit and stay on recovery of liabilities.