9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court dated 11.02.2005 but still the appellant was found running the above mentioned courses against collecting fees for providing the courses, resultantly, were alleged to have been providing the services of commercial training or coaching as defined under Clause 26 and 27 of Section 65 read with Sub-Clause zzc of Clause 105 of Section 5 of Finance Act, 1994. Since the appellant had not discharged their tax liability qua the aforesaid collected fee during the period March 2004 to March 2008 and also for the period April 2008 to August 2009, four Show Cause Notices were issued as follows:- SCN Date Period Amount of Demand Raised Levy confirm by O-I-O dt. 22.10.12 & Review Order dt. 27.02.13 24.04.2009 01.03.2004 to 09.09.2004 Rs. 4,31,93,583/- Rs. 1,42,84,652/- 14.10.2009 April 2008 to August 2009 Rs. 5,77,16,982/- Rs. 5,16,91,778/- 12.10.2010 September 2009 to August 2010 Rs. 3,40,53,518/- 3,08,73,544/- (vide corrigendum dated 27.11.12) 05.10.2011 September 2010 to March 2011 Rs. 1,94,94,700/- Rs. 1,76,74,252/- Total Rs.15,44,58,783/- Rs. 11,45,24,226/- Resultantly, the present Appeal. 3. Heard arguments of both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not apparently recognised during the period of demand vide various Show Cause Notices i.e. w.e.f. 2004 to 2011. The only document relied upon by the appellant to prove the affiliation is the convergence scheme but the same cannot be called as the recognition by the university authorised under law to so recognise. Hence, the demand has rightly been raised in the Show Cause Notice and has rightly been confirmed. The extent thereof is conceded. It is further submitted that the findings of the original Adjudicating Authority that no malafide intention can be attributed to the appellants is objected as being self contradictory in the Order itself. Doing away the penalties on the said basis is also alleged to be an erroneous finding. The said findings are prayed to be set aside. Both the Appeals are prayed to be disposed of accordingly. 6. After hearing both the Counsels, we are of the considered opinion as follows:- It is an admitted fact that the appellants are imparting education in following courses against consideration: (i) B.Sc. Management/ BBA (ii) M.Sc. International Business (iii) PGDM/PGP/MBA (iv) Diploma in design The point of consideration is as to whether i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofit motive and the expression "commercial training or coaching" shall be construed accordingly, [Section 65(105)(zzc)] Further, under Notification No. 33/2011 dated 25.04.2011 exemption has been granted to any coaching and training leading to grant of a certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification which is recognised by any law for the time being in force. It reads as : "In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempt, - (i) any preschool coaching and training; (ii) any coaching or training leading to grant of a certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification which is recognized by any law for the time being in force; when provided by any commercial coaching or training centre from the whole of the service tax leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994." This Notification came into force on the 1st day of May, 2011. Thus, two identical courses may be treated differently merely because one of the institute also conducts another course that is recognized by law. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a commercial training or coaching centre and the appellants have already been held to have been rendering commercial training or coaching centre services, we again find no infirmity with the Order under challenge. Above all, the appellant has conceded that said demand in lieu of Notification dated 27.02.2010. 9. The appellant while challenging the levy qua this cost have claimed the exemption in their favour under Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 but the perusal of said Notification clarifies that the same is not applicable to the appellants. Vocational training institute as per the explanation of said Notification is held to mean an industrial training institute or an industrial training centre affiliated to the National Council for Vocational Training offering courses in designated trades as notified under the Apprentices Act, 1961. There is nothing on record to prove said affiliation. The exemption has rightly been declined by the adjudicating authority below. The demand to this vocational course is also therefore confirmed. 10. Now, coming to the entitlement of the Department for invoking extended period, it is held as follows:- Department also has preferred an Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
