9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on granted to the assessee by the open university (YCMOU) prior to 31.03.2015 and the letter dated 20.06.2016 tried to provide a post facto approval to the prior period which is not in conformity to sub section 143 of 66D of the Finance Act for the reason that sample copy of certain mark sheets and certificates issued in 2015 by the Registrar, YCMOU as filed at page 57-58 of the appeal paper book would go to show that the batch was enrolled in 2014, though certificates were issued in 2016 which is admittedly after the grant of recognition. Going by the strict interpretation of clause (l)(ii) of section 66D, if services were provided as part of curriculum for obtaining qualification recognized by law, appellant would be entitled to avail the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ognized by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University (in short YCMOU) in March 2015, that received affirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals), is assailed before this forum by Assessee Appellant M/s. Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Limited. 2. Fact of the case, in brief, is that Appellant Company had registered itself for providing various services viz. maintenance /Repair service, Information Technology supply service, business support service, Commercial training and coaching service etc. and it was providing WAVE courses from 2011 in terms of an agreement dated 07.06.2011 (Annexed to Appeal file). It had started providing KLiC diploma courses from 01.04.2014 and entered into an agreement with YCMOU on 30.03.2015 and continued to im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for refund was filed by April, 2015 that was well within the limitation period. Confirmation of the said finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) has brought the dispute to the present forum. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. R.S. Paranjapre, submitted that certificate was issued by the institute on KLiC Diploma courses also for which due recognition was received from the YCMOU through agreement w.e.f. 01.04.2015 but prior to that also the same course was being recognized by the university namely YCMOU, which is acknowledged in their letter dated 20.06.2016. He further submitted that for the period from F.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15, the Refund Sanctioning Authority had allowed them refund and department has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llied Photographics India Ltd., Vs. CCE, 2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC) cited supra, which appellant failed to discharge for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) need not be interfered with. 6. We have perused the appeal paper book, written note of submissions filed by both the sides, relevant provisions of law on the issue as well as relied upon precedent decisions. As could be noticed, this refund application pertains to a period for which there was no formal recognition granted to the assessee by the open university (YCMOU) prior to 31.03.2015 and the letter dated 20.06.2016 tried to provide a post facto approval to the prior period which is not in conformity to sub section 143 of 66D of the Finance Act for the reason that sample ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
