9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Khare, C.S., for appellant Shri V.R. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant are engaged in providing commercial training and coaching service. The students of the institute are awarded certificate/ degree by IGNOU and the income so derived in relation to the same is exempted from service tax. However they are p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scuss about exemption notification etc. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the total amount payable by the Appellant in terms of Rule 6 (3) (b) is Rs. 5,58,641/- whereas the Appellant had paid only Rs. 4,70,925/- and hence there is no question of payment of any refund claim. Also that the claim is time barred. The Appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and consequentially no refund arises. He however held that the refunds are not time barred. The Appellant has filed the present appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Shri Vikas Chitnis, Ld. CS appearing for the Appellant submits that amount payable under Rule 6 (3) of CCR will be only with reference to Appellant's share of fees for IGNOU courses and only that amount shall b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r such service provided or to be provided by him. In the present case the services in question has been provided to the students by the Appellant. It is not the case that the students are directly remitting the fee to the IGNOU. The Appellant is collecting the fee and then remitting it to the IGNOU. The agreement between the Appellant and the IGNOU is of revenue sharing. However it does not ipso f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
