2008 (8) TMI 228 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal remands case for further review on commercial coaching services vs. infrastructure fees denial.

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner for further examination to determine if the appellant provided commercial coaching services or ... Coaching for competitive examination for students for IIT (JEE), AIEEE etc. - Appellant in order to substantiate his point that they had not provided any commercial coaching, brought a large number of ledgers – appellant accepted the fact that even though they collected the amount in the guise of tuition fee, etc. the amount was not meant for commercial coaching at all - It is also not clear whether the ledgers which were brought by the learned Advocate before the Tribunal were examined by the learned Adjudicating authority. Without expressing any opinion on the issue, in the interest of justice, we are remanding the matter to the learned Commissioner Issues:1. Whether the appellant provided commercial coaching services.2. Whether the amount collected was for infrastructure facilities or commercial coaching.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original alleging the appellant provided taxable 'commercial coaching' services. The appellant, a part of an educational society, argued they only provided infrastructure and hostel facilities, not commercial coaching. The Revenue contended the appellant offered coaching for various competitive exams. The appellant claimed the collected amount was for infrastructure, not coaching, despite being labeled as tuition fees.Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted the appellant's denial of providing commercial coaching. The appellant presented ledgers supporting their claim. However, it was unclear if the ledgers were examined by the Adjudicating authority. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh examination. The Commissioner was directed to review all records and contentions, determining if the amount collected was truly for commercial coaching. The appellant was instructed to provide all relevant documents. The Commissioner was to issue a new order within four months.In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the case for further examination, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the records to ascertain whether the appellant provided commercial coaching services or merely collected fees for infrastructure facilities. The stay application and appeal were disposed of by way of remand, awaiting the Commissioner's revised decision within the specified timeframe.