2019 (1) TMI 912 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on Service Tax liability, penalties deemed unsustainable

M/s Allen Career Institute Versus CCE & ST, Udaipur

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that they were only liable to pay Service Tax on the amount received from students, rejecting ... Valuation - commercial coaching or training services - inclusion of amount of concession in the name of scholarship given by the appellant to its various students in assessable value - non-monetary consideration - Section 67 of the Finance act, 1994 read with Rule 3 of Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 - Held that:- The matter is no longer res-integra and it has already been decided by this Tribunal in M/S RESONANCE EDUVENTURES PVT. LTD., SHRI R.K. VERMA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S ALIEN CAREER INSTITUTE VERSUS CCE & ST, JAIPUR [2017 (11) TMI 1276 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that there are no reason to consider the concessional portion of fee which is as per the pre-declared publicity material, as part of non-monetary consideration requiring addition to the monetary consideration to arrive at the gross value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Whether the appellant should have paid Service Tax on the normal fee charged from students who received scholarshipsRs.2. Validity of demand confirmed against the appellant under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Imposition of penalties under Section 76 and Section 77(2).Analysis:Issue 1:The main issue revolved around whether the appellant should have paid Service Tax on the normal fee charged from students who received scholarships. The department contended that the scholarship amount provided by the appellant to students constituted non-monetary consideration, necessitating Service Tax payment on the normal fee. However, the appellant argued that the gross amount charged from students, including those eligible for scholarships, was the fee itself, with no additional consideration received. The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the appellant's favor, emphasizing that the scholarship scheme was a legitimate business practice aimed at promoting their services. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were liable to pay Service Tax only on the amount received from students, rejecting the notion of considering the concessional portion of the fee as non-monetary consideration.Issue 2:The validity of the demand confirmed against the appellant under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was also challenged. The appellant contended that the penalties imposed were not sustainable, emphasizing that the concessions offered were part of a declared policy to attract candidates and promote their business. The Tribunal examined the nature of the scholarship program and the criteria for fee concessions, ultimately holding that the appellants were correct in discharging Service Tax based on the amount received from students participating in the coaching classes. The Tribunal found no grounds to invoke valuation rules, affirming that the appellant's scheme for fee concessions was a bona fide trade practice.Issue 3:Regarding the penalties imposed under Section 76 and Section 77(2), the Tribunal found them unsustainable in the given circumstances. It was determined that the penalties were not justified, given the legitimate nature of the appellant's business practices and the absence of any violation of tax regulations. Consequently, the order-in-original was deemed devoid of merit and set aside, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the miscellaneous application.In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing the legitimacy of their scholarship scheme and fee concessions as part of their business promotion strategy, thereby rejecting the imposition of Service Tax on the normal fee charged from students who received scholarships.