TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts 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 facto leads to exclusion of said amount remitted to the IGNOU from the purview of the consideration. Hence such amount is part of value of services. The whole consideration received by the Appellant is value of exempted service and the computation of 5/6% shall be made on such value - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. ST/86842/2014 - ORDER NO. A/86361/2018 - Dated:- 10-5-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Raju, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,925/- 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 (Appeals) who held that there are two broad reasons for claiming refunds paid by them in excess viz. some amount was refunded to the students and share of IGNOU was not required to be included in the value of exempted services paid by them was in excess . The amount refunded to the students has been excluded by the lower authority from the value of services, however the share of IGNOU was included. In terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 the gross amount charged by the service provider is the value of services provided. In the present case the gross amount charged from the students ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 facto leads to exclusion of said amount remitted to the IGNOU from the purview of the consideration. Hence such amount is part of value of services. The order of Tribunal in case of CDAC supra is in context of scope/ classification of service as franchisee service which is not the issue here. The Appellant has received the amount from the students even if the same was shared with the IGNOU. Hence the whole amount would be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
