9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of co-venture where two parties work for a common purpose, i.e., rendering commercial training/coaching service to the students. Such an agreement has been held to be in the nature of a revenue sharing arrangement by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in SHRI NIRAJ PRASAD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, KANPUR [ 2019 (11) TMI 436 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] . Service tax could not have been levied upon the appellant - the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained and is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 52452 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50866/2022 - Dated:- 12-9-2022 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Shagun Arora, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Harshvardhan, Authorized Representative of the Department ORDER M/s Samadhan Systems Pvt. Ltd. [ the appellant ] has filed this appeal to assail the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise, Jaipur [the Commissioner (Appeals)] dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant to challenge the order dated 06/19.11.2012 passed by the Additional Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the students was discharged by MAAC. The appeal filed by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) was, however, allowed. An appeal was, thereafter, preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal in M/s. Samadhan Systems (P) Ltd. versus C.C.E., Jaipur-I [ 2018 (2) TMI 1049 CESTAT New Delhi ]. The Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of commercial training or coaching service, particularly when tax on such service had already been discharged by MAAC. 8. Two subsequent show cause notices dated 15.4.2011 and 7.10.2011 were also issued to the appellant for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 raising the same allegations as contained in the earlier show cause notice dated 05.03.2010. It has been proposed in these two show cause notices that the appellant was rendering commercial training or coaching service to the students and was liable to pay service tax on the amount paid by the students. It has also been alleged that MAAC was rendering franchise service to the appellant, which is an independent transaction and, therefore, the service tax paid by MAAC cannot be a reason for the appellant not to pay s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 2009-10 and 2010-11. The allegation made in the show cause notices is that the appellant is rendering commercial training or coaching service to the students and is, therefore, liable to pay service tax on the amount paid by the students. In regard to the service tax paid by MAAC, the show cause notice alleges that MAAC was rendering franchise service to the appellant, which was an independent transaction and, therefore, service tax paid by MAAC would not absolve the appellant from paying service tax. 14. The said issue stands covered in favour of the appellant in the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of the appellant itself in Samadhan Systems. The decision relates to an earlier period from 2004-05 to 2008-09, while the dispute in the present appeal is from April 2009 to March 2011 and holds that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of commercial training or coaching service, particularly when tax on such service had been discharged by MAAC. The relevant portion of said decision of the Tribunal in Samadhan Systems is reproduced below: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing computer e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been disputed. The fact that the premises in which the training is carried out by the appellant is also listed for central registration to discharge Service Tax by MAAC is also not disputed. In such situation, it is not clear as to how a Service Tax liability on the appellant can again be fastened on the very same activity. We also note that the appellant do not receive any amount from the service recipient as a consideration. The arrangement is that the gross amount paid by the students is credited to MAAC on which Service Tax has been discharged. It is clear that the appellant acts as an instrument in carrying out the training programme which is designed and managed by the MAAC . This is evident from the course completion certificate issued by MAAC on completion of the course. We have perused the sample certificate issued in this regard. The appellants name is nowhere figuring in the completion certificate. All these facts will indicate that MAAC is overall managing and the commercial coaching and training service suffered tax at their hands. 10. We also perused the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Aurangabad in a similar set of facts though with reference to another busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
