9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire fee structure was brought to the net of service tax in the above case law (PTU) but it is not the Revenue’s case in the present case - When it is so then there is no justification to bring the “accreditation fee” to the service tax net - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/75010/2013 - FO/A/76311/16 - Dated:- 16-12-2016 - Shri (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Ms. Leena Rachh, CA for the Appellant (s) Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Supt.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per: Shri Ashok K. Arya, 1. The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No.11/COM/ST/SLG/12-13 dated 4.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Excise Service Tax, Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture. Recognition of the learning centre can be withdrawn at any time by the appellant. Every fee is charged by the appellant i.e. the appellant institution. 5. During the course of arguments Ld. CA/Counsel has drawn the attention to the Order-in-Original No.47-63/Pr.Commr/ST-I/KOL/2016-17, dated 22.08.2016, passed by the Revenue Department where the issue was discussed. In the said order dated 22.08.2016, it is mentioned that the appellant is empowered and is required, for the purpose of its Distance Education Mode, itself to establish and collaborate with study centers/learning centers in various parts of the country and abroad and is required to fulfill the requisite qualifications and comply with the Distance-Guidelines for regulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d shared is not subject to service tax, then merely accreditation fee amount cannot be charged to service tax. 7. On the other hand Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) has relied on the order of the lower authorities. He also submits that the issue is covered against the assassee as per the ratio laid down in the case of Punjab Technical University vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ludhiana [2016(42) S.T.R. 474 (Tri.-Del.)], where identical facts were discussed. In the said order, it was stated that students do not identify themselves with LCs but with appellant university only. 8. In the rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant tried to distinguish the said case by stating that in the Punjab Technical Uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ludhiana [2016(42) S.T.R. 474 (Tri.-Del.)] is not applicable and distinguishable on facts. 11. In the instant case, the department raised no demand of service tax on the fee shared by the appellant with the learning centers. Only the dispute is pertaining to accreditation fee while in the case of PTU, entire fee structure was the subject matter of the tax. 12. Moreover, the Punjab Technical University case has come after 2013, when the distance education was brought under regulation of the University Grants Commission. But during the period under consideration, the distance education was regulated by the Distance Education Council (DEC), IGNOU, Delhi which is an independent an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
