9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ext plea that Notification No.24/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 provides exemption for vocational training imparted by vocational training institutes. The said Notification was amended by Notification No.19/2005-ST, which inserted a proviso and explanation, and makes it clear that Notification No.24/2004 will not apply to taxable services provided in relation to commercial training or coaching by a computer training institute. According to the Department, the appellant is a computer training institute. The Tribunal was justified in distinguishing the interlocutary order passed by the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Rayudu Vision Media Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in [2013 (12) TMI 52 - CESTAT BANGALORE], as it found that it related to a case of training in 2D and 3D animations and it was not a case of computer training, but only a vocational training conducted with the aid of computers. Nevertheless, we find no reason why the Tribunal in the present case should be bound by the interlocutary order passed by the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Rayudu Vision Media Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in [2013 (12) TMI 52 - CESTAT BANG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional grounds will be considered for further detailed argument at the time of disposal of appeal? 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in not considering the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in identical matters holding the issue in favour of the appellant herein inspite of the said decision having been specifically brought to its notice?" C.M.A.Nos.514 to 516 of 2014: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in observing that it will not be proper for it to make any modification of the stay order in view of the existence of the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baron International Ltd. - vs. UOI - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 150 (Bom.) overlooking the subsequent judgment of the very same court in the case of Maina Khema - Vs. UOI - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 3 (Bom.) holding that the said judgment though held that tribunal cannot exercise review jurisdiction, had jurisdiction to modify its orders within the permissible limits and parameters laid down under law? 2. Whether the tribunal was correct in not following the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Rayudu Vision Media Ltd. - vs. CEX, Hyderabad - 2013 (31) STR 501 (Tri-Bang) involving id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een paid pending enquiry. 3. The assessee filed a written submission to the show cause notice. The Commissioner of Service Tax considered the same and held that the perusal of the receipts issued by the assessee to the students showed that the whole amount received by them represents course fee and not for sale of goods. The Commissioner, therefore, held that the course materials are not priced, but only for the purpose of payment of service tax, the assessee deliberately adopted 50% of the course fee as charges for course material. Therefore, he held against the assessee upholding the demand of service tax. The relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner reads as follows: "i. In terms of the provisions of Finance Act, 1994, I order confirming the demand of service tax of Rss.1,21,98,372/- (Rupees one crore twenty one lakh ninety eight thousand three hundred and seventy two only) payable by M/s.STC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. during the period from April, 2005 to November, 2008 under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 73(2) of the Act. ii. In terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, I order confirming the demand of service tax of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s within a period of six weeks. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as follows: "7. Opposing the prayer, the Ld. A. R. for Revenue submits that the value of the study materials has been arbitrarily fixed just to avoid payment of appropriate service tax. He points out that the material in question is not sold independently of the training service and is of no value independent of the service. He submits the cases where the Tribunal allowed exemption there was evidence that the books were sold independently also and the cost of the books was not artificially inflated to reduce the cost of the taxable service. Further, he invites our attention to para 6.4 of the order incorporating images of sample receipt and invoice which shows that the full amount is received from trainees as "course fee" but the amount is artificially split. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Soni Classes Vs. CCER - 2013 (30) STR (92) (Tri-Del.) 8. Considered submissions on both sides. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate that 50% of the course fees collected is actually cost of course of the material sold. Further, the materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distinguishable on facts, and that, the appellant 's business is in the nature of vocational training and therefore, should get exemption. 9. The Tribunal considered all the above-said pleas and came to the conclusion that the activity of the appellant relates to testing of software and is primarily connected with computer software development and is covered by exclusion clause under Notification No.24/2000-ST as amended by Noft.19/2005-ST. All the nine petitions were taken up by the Tribunal and by order 28.8.2013, the Tribunal after hearing the appellant declined to modify the earlier order dated 27.05.2013, however, extended the time-limit for complying with the stay order till 17th October, 2013, holding as follows: "6. We have considered submissions of both sides. Stay order of the Bangalore Bench is with reference to training in 2D and 3D animation, which training was imparted using computer software and computer hardware. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal was of the prima facie view that it was not computer training but only a vocational training conducted with the aid of computers. In the case before us, the activity relates to testing of software and is prima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal. 14. The next plea that Notification No.24/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 provides exemption for vocational training imparted by vocational training institutes. The said Notification was amended by Notification No.19/2005-ST, which inserted a proviso and explanation, and makes it clear that Notification No.24/2004 will not apply to taxable services provided in relation to commercial training or coaching by a computer training institute. According to the Department, the appellant is a computer training institute. The Tribunal was justified in distinguishing the interlocutary order passed by the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Rayudu Vision Media Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2013 (31) STR 501 (Tri.Bang.), as it found that it related to a case of training in 2D and 3D animations and it was not a case of computer training, but only a vocational training conducted with the aid of computers. Nevertheless, we find no reason why the Tribunal in the present case should be bound by the interlocutary order passed by the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Rayudu Vision Media Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2013 (31) STR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
