2018 (4) TMI 835 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in Service Tax dispute over computer education program.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the Service Tax liability imposed on the appellant for providing computer education and ... Commercial Coaching and Training Service - the appellant is a business partner of M/s. Maya Academy of Advance Cinema tics (MAAC) for imparting Computer Education and training programme in graphic animations and cinematics - Held that: - the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Samadhan System Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2018 (2) TMI 1049 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that MAAC is overall managing and the commercial coaching and training service suffered tax at their hands. No Service Tax liability will arise on the business partner of MAAC under commercial coaching and training service. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Service Tax liability on the appellant for providing computer education and training program in graphic animations and cinematics.Analysis:The appellant, a business partner of a company providing computer education and training, did not pay Service Tax on the services provided, arguing that the central registration certificate issued to the main company covered its premises and Service Tax was being paid by the main company for all centers. However, the Department imposed Service Tax on the appellant, categorizing the service under 'Commercial Coaching and Training Service.' Both parties agreed that the issue was similar to a previous Tribunal decision where the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the agreement between the appellant and the main company outlined their obligations, with students paying fees credited to the main company, which had already paid Service Tax. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not receive any consideration directly from students and acted as an instrument in carrying out the training program managed by the main company. The Tribunal also referred to a Commissioner's order in a similar case, concluding that no Service Tax liability should arise for the business partner of the main company. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in upholding the Service Tax liability against the appellant and allowed the appeal, setting aside the original order.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the Service Tax liability imposed on the appellant for providing computer education and training program in graphic animations and cinematics was not justified. The decision was based on the fact that the main company had already paid Service Tax on the consideration received from students, and the appellant acted as an instrument in carrying out the training program managed by the main company. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not receive any consideration directly from students and that a similar case had been decided in favor of the business partner of the main company in a previous Commissioner's order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Service Tax liability against the appellant and allowed the appeal.