9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re resintegra - The Tribunal in the case of Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt Ltd [2018 (5) TMI 1417 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], identical issue arose as to whether referring the students and the amounts received as referral commission would get covered for tax purposes under Rule 2(f) of point of provision of Service Rules 2012 and whether such services would fall under the category of intermediary services or otherwise. The Bench after considering the submissions made recorded the following order which covers the issue in favour of the appellant which are applicable in this case also - it was held in the case that As the appellant did not arrange or facilitate main service i.e. education or loan rendered by colleges/banks. In that circumstances, the appellant cannot be called as intermediary. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/30061/2018 - A/31277/2018 - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Mr Jitender Motwani, Adv for the Assessee Mr. Dass Thavanam A.R. for the Revenue ORDER Per M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No HYD-SVTAX-000-AP2-019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority, vide the impugned order, held, inter alia that the services rendered by the appellants i.e. education consultancy service to the native students aspiring in overseas education and also assisting them in the form of logistical support to get admission in foreign universities do not fall under the negative list of services as provided under Sec. 66D of the Finance Act, 1994; that the said services are not admission related as per Sl. No. 9 of exemption NotificationNo. 25/2012 ST dated 25.06.2012 as amended in view of the definition of educational institution provided under the said exemption notification; and that the service is not an export of service inasmuch as the place of provision is not outside India; that intermediary service is one of the services specified under Rule 9(c) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 and accordingly, confirmed the tax demand after allowing the cum-tax benefit under Sec. 67 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred an appeal before the 1 st Appellate Authority on various grounds. The 1 st Appellate Authority after following the due process of law upheld the order-in-original and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide India. Hence the question of leviability of service tax will not arise as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Indian Association of Tour Operators vs UOI [2017 (5) GSTL 4 (DEL). It is his alternate submission that services provided are in relation to admission of the students and are covered under Sl No 09 of Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 dated 28.06.2012. It is his submission that in view of this, the impugned order needs to be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 5. Learned A.R. on the other hand draws our attention to the findings recorded by the 1 st Appellate Authority and submits that the agreement entered into by the appellant with foreign universities clearly indicates that appellant is an agent and is some times referred to as a party and collectively as parties. He would submit that the said agreement contained activities to be executed by the appellant and appellant would be representative of the universities in question and should attend to admission/recruitment of students to the said universities. He would submit that the services which are related to the admission to educational institutes are exempted under Sl No 9 of Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of intermediary services and taxable under the Finance Act 1994. 10. We find that the issue is no more resintegra. The Tribunal in the case of Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt Ltd (supra), identical issue arose as to whether referring the students and the amounts received as referral commission would get covered for tax purposes under Rule 2(f) of point of provision of Service Rules 2012 and whether such services would fall under the category of intermediary services or otherwise. The Bench after considering the submissions made recorded the following order which covers the issue in favour of the appellant which are applicable in this case also. We reproduce the relevant paragraphs: 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of submissions made by both the sides, we find that on the visa facilitation services the appellant has not disputed their service tax liability. Therefore, on that account liability of service tax is confirmed 7. The appellant is only disputed their liability on referral service post 01.07.2012 and submits that the appellant is not intermediary, therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax post 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of limitation was also not sustainable. 11. It is also noticed that similar/ identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Study Overseas Global Pvt ltd (supra) wherein after considering the submissions, the Bench held as under: M/s. Study Overseas Global (P) Ltd. is in appeal against order-in-appeal number 132/2013, dated 6-6-2013 whereunder the rejection of refund claim of ₹ 15,66,153.00 filed by the appellant has been sustained. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in promotion and marketing of universities located in India as well as abroad, with the aim of attracting students for enrolment into such universities. For such services, foreign universities are paying certain commission as agreed upon, to the appellant. The appellant also charges a separate consideration for promotion and marketing carriedout by them. The appellant invoices the foreign universities for the commission, which is received after final admission to a prospective student by the foreign university, for the services so provided. 3. The Revenue s stand is that the activities of the appellant are covered under the category of Business Auxiliary Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices Rules and are not liable to Service Tax. (iii) The principle of equivalence between the taxation of goods and taxation of services, as laid clown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners [MANU/SC/3283/2007 = (7) S.T.R. 625 (S.C.)] as also the principles of destination based consumption tax were in the context of Constitutional Authority of levy of Service Tax on certain services and the issue of Export of Service in terms of Export of Services Rules was not the subject matter of said decision. The Export of Services Rules, 2005, being destination based consumption tax are in accordance with the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (iv) (v) Having held that services involved were export of services, the same are not liable to be sustained against the appellants . Similar views were observed by the CESTAT in its decision in the Order No. 50095/2015, dated 2-1-2015 in case of CST, New Delhi v. Study Overseas India (P) Ltd. in Appeal No. ST/135/2012 CU(DB). 8. Thus, the Export of Services being destination based is subject to Tax. Further, mere fact that the appellant has been promoting and ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
