TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he franchise services as proposed by the Revenue - We also find that the service by the way of education as a part of recognized university recognized by law is taxable neither taxability during the positive list nor under the negative list which has been rightly pointed out by the Ld. advocate. As the main service, other than the transportation service is held to be not liable for service tax, we hold demand on other appellants, who have been visited with the penalty, is also not sustainable and liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - APPEAL NO. ST/61846/2018 & ST/60434-60438/2017 - FINAL ORDER NO. 63658-63663 /2018 - Dated:- 7-12-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant(s): Shri Surjeet Bhadu (Advocate), Shri Veer Singh (Advocate) Present for the Respondent(s): Shri G.M. Sharma (AR) ORDER Per : Bijay Kumar All these appeals arise out of a common adjudication order No. 14-20/CE//CHD-II/2017 dated 28.02.2017 (Herein after referred to as the impugned order) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise commissionarate, Chandigarh-II (hereinafter refer to adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Training to students/corporate employees and they had not discharged their Service Tax liability on the same, the investigation against them was instituted. After the investigation, it was concluded that the appellant had been providing the commercial training and coaching service as defined under Section 65(26) of the Finance Act, 1994 (herein after referred to as the act). It was found from the ACEs record, the main appellant was registered only for providing GTA service vide registration No. AAFTS6189MD001. The main appellant had failed to pay any service tax for the GTA service since the date of registration. After the investigation, the appellants were visited with the show cause notice dated 22.04.2016 and the demand as has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority as above. The other appellants, were (i) Dr. Gopal Munjal, President; (ii) Sh. V.R. Mehta, Treasurer (iii) Sh. Kulbhushan Agarwal, Head Commercial, Ind-Swift Group; (iv) Dr. Maninder Mehmi, Head Administrator; (V) Sh. Parveen Chaudhary and (VI) Sh. Jagdish Kumar, both accountants against them penalty were confirmed under Section 77(2) of the Act. 4. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Ld. advocate relied upon the decision of M/s Popular Paints and Chemicals Vs. C.C.E final order No. 52716-52718/2018 and in the case of M/s Magnum Steel ltd. Vs. CCE 2017 (358) E.L.T. 529 (Tri. Delhi); regarding the demand for the degree course of Coventry University, it was submitted that the issue could be decided in two parts that is for period from October 2010 to 30th June 2012 and 1st July 2012 to 31st March 2015. The period October 2010 to 30th June 2012 pertained positive list regime and period 1st July 2012 to 31st March 2015 is covered by the negative list regime. 7. It was also mentioned by the Ld. advocate that the present proceedings on the account of the fact as to where the exemption of service tax from October 2010 to March 2015 under both positive list and negative list regime of Finance Act which is summarized as under: I. From October 2010 to 30.04.2011: The definition of commercial training or coaching did not include any institute or establishment which issues any certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognized by law for the time being in force. II. From 01.05.2011 to 30.06.2012: The exclusion as explained above was omi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such as approving curriculum, course documentation, nominating external examiners from the Coventry University setting up the paper, post moderates the marking of papers, being part of the examination board etc. as per the Schedule 1 of the Financial arrangement is provided by which cannot come under the franchise services, regarding the transportation charge. 11. The ld. Advocate considered to the fact during relevant period, the exemption was withdrawn for the transportation services provided by the educational institute. By the withdrawal of exemption, was resorted once again, however, he is not pressing the issue before us and willing to deposit the amount of service tax on, the transportation service provided by the main appellant, to the extent of ₹ 4.23 lakhs. 12. On the other hand, Ld. AR supports the impugned order on interrogating the ground for confirmation of demand against the appellant. 13. We have heard the parties and carefully considered the facts of the case. 14. The issue to be decided by us is regarding the classification of the courses being provided by the appellant falls under commercial coaching services and franchise services or not. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
