Tribunal rules in favor of appellants, grants condonation of delay, and exempts coaching for Distance Education Programme from service tax.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the appellants. It granted condonation of delay for 52 days due to the Director's illness, waived predeposit, and held that coaching for Distance Education Programme students should not attract service tax as it led to recognized qualifications, following precedent decisions and citing a Kerala High Court ruling on discriminatory taxation of parallel colleges. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in preferring appeals.
2. Waiver of predeposit.
3. Service tax liability on coaching classes conducted by the appellants for students enrolled in Distance Education Programme of a university.

Condonation of Delay:
The Tribunal allowed the applications for condonation of delay of 52 days in preferring the appeals, attributing the delay to the illness of the Director of the institute, supported by medical certificates.

Waiver of Predeposit:
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals themselves as the issue in dispute was covered by a precedent decision of the Tribunal. Both sides consented to the final disposal of the appeals after waiving predeposit.

Service Tax Liability:
The issue revolved around whether the coaching classes conducted by the appellants for students enrolled in a Distance Education Programme should attract service tax. The appellants argued that their institution functioned as a parallel college, similar to regular colleges exempt from service tax. They contended that students attending their institution obtained degrees recognized by law through the Distance Education Programme. Referring to a Memorandum of Understanding with the university, they cited a Kerala High Court decision declaring the levy of service tax on parallel colleges as discriminatory and violative of the Constitution.

The Tribunal examined the arguments and the Memorandum of Understanding, along with the Kerala High Court decision and a Tribunal case following its ratio. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the levy of service tax on coaching forming an essential part of a university course leading to recognized certificates, diplomas, or degrees was not justified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In summary, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the appellants, based on the precedent decisions and the argument that the coaching provided by the appellants for the Distance Education Programme students should not attract service tax as it led to recognized qualifications.

---