2013 (11) TMI 344 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant's Request for Stay Modification Denied

M/s SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's request for modifying the stay order, allowing the pre-deposit within a specified timeline and emphasizing the lack ... Modification of Stay order - Similar matter referred to larger bench in another case - whether the coaching or training given by institutions for 'higher learning' would be covered by definition or not; - Held that:- appellant has not been able to make out a case for modification of our stay order dated 5.4.2013. However, in the interest of justice, we allow the appellant to make pre-deposit as directed in our stay order dated 5.4.2013 within eight weeks from today and report compliance on 10.9.2013. Subject to compliance of the requirement as directed above, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery of the balance dues during pendency of the appeal - Decided partly against assessee. Issues Involved:1. Modification of stay order directing appellant to deposit Rs. 25 crores within eight weeks.2. Reference to Larger Bench and requirement of unconditional stay.3. Interpretation of 'higher learning' and commercial training/coaching centers.4. Comparison with previous cases involving stay orders and pre-deposit requirements.Analysis:Issue 1: Modification of Stay OrderThe appellant sought modification of the stay order directing them to deposit Rs. 25 crores within eight weeks. The appellant argued that a similar issue referred to the Larger Bench should warrant unconditional stay. However, the Revenue contended that the stay order was detailed, considering all submissions and the demand was within the normal period. The Tribunal noted the facts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision on a previous case involving 1/3rd pre-deposit of service tax demanded. The Tribunal found no grounds for modification and allowed the appellant to make the pre-deposit within eight weeks.Issue 2: Reference to Larger BenchThe reference to the Larger Bench was made to interpret the concept of 'higher learning' and commercial training centers. The Tribunal clarified that the reference was not due to conflicting views but to analyze the meaning of 'higher learning.' The Tribunal emphasized that the stay order should not be modified based on the reference, as there were no contrary decisions by different Benches. The Tribunal also distinguished this case from a previous case involving a stay order modification based on a reference to the Larger Bench.Issue 3: Interpretation of 'Higher Learning'The Division Bench referred the issue to the Larger Bench to interpret 'higher learning' and distinguish it from commercial training centers. The Tribunal observed that the reference was for clarifying the meaning of 'higher learning' and the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim for modifying the stay order based on the reference was not sustainable, as there were no conflicting decisions by Division Benches.Issue 4: Comparison with Previous CasesThe appellant compared this case with a previous case involving a stay order modification after a reference to the Larger Bench. However, the Tribunal differentiated the cases, noting the Supreme Court's decision on pre-deposit in the present case. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to establish grounds for modifying the stay order and allowed the pre-deposit within a specified timeline for waiver of further pre-deposit and stay against recovery during the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's request for modifying the stay order, emphasizing the lack of grounds for such modification and allowing the pre-deposit within a specified timeline for waiver of further pre-deposit and stay against recovery during the appeal.