2016 (8) TMI 794 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay Held that - no delay in filing appeals. Filing of appeal in correct position. Stay of appeal demand of tax, interest and penalty pre-deposit educational bodies conferring degrees - commercial training or coaching centre amendment in finance act w.e.f.01/05/2011 Held that - demand of ₹ 10,60,37,882/- for 2010-2011 pertaining to ICFAIAN Foundation and demand of ₹ 2,30,686/- for the period 2010-2011 pertaining to ICFAI, Hyderabad is disputable and open to interpretation. . The appellants are directed to deposit 50% of ₹ 10,62,68,568/- within four weeks, subject to payment of which, recovery of remaining demands in respect of other appeals will stand stayed till the disposal of the appeals decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Stay and Condonation of Delay (COD) in eleven appeals.

Condonation of Delay (COD): The appellants argued no delay in filing the appeals as they received the rectification application order promptly. The Department's representative agreed with this position, leading to the conclusion that the appeals were filed within the prescribed time limit.

Stay Applications: The appeals involved disputed demands from 2005-06 to 2010-11 for various educational bodies. The appellants cited a previous stay order by CESTAT Hyderabad for the period 2003-2005, emphasizing that educational bodies like universities were excluded from 'commercial training or coaching centers.' They relied on multiple decisions to support their case. The appellants contended that most demands, except for specific amounts for 2010-2011, were disputable and not sustainable post an amendment in the Finance Act, 1994. The Department opposed the stay applications but acknowledged the previous stay order covering the period in question. The tribunal found merit in the appellants' contentions, deeming the issue debatable from 01.05.2011 post the amendment. However, considering the specific demands for 2010-2011, the tribunal directed a 50% predeposit of the total amount, with the remaining demands stayed pending appeal disposal. The compliance was set for a future date.

Conclusion: The tribunal granted the appeals for COD and directed a predeposit for specific demands, acknowledging the debatable nature of the issues post the legislative amendment. The decision balanced the interests of justice by allowing a partial stay while ensuring compliance with the predeposit requirement.