2009 (12) TMI 361 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Remands Case on Liability of Training Centers Under Notification, Upholds Penalty Decision

The Tribunal remanded the case to quantify liability of commercial training centers under Notification No. 6/05-S.T., denying exemption due to fee ... Commercial training or coaching centers – Notification No. 10/03- ST., dated 20-6-03 – Rectification of mistake (ROM) application – appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Malappurarn Distt. Parallel College Association v. Union of India [2010 TMI - 77410 - High Court of Kerala] wherein the Hon’ble High Court had observed that charging service tax for service rendered by parallel colleges (commercial training or coaching centres) and simultaneously allowing exemption to regular colleges for the same service was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. – Held that: - court itself has clarified that this judgment was rendered in the peculiar facts applicable to parallel colleges in Kerala and advised that the same was not to be treated as declaring the Section unconstitutional, in so far as any other category of educational institution or training centre was concerned - What the applicants are seeking now is a different interpretation of the High Court’s judgment and the notification which does not fall within the scope of ROM application. – ROM application rejected Issues:1. Eligibility of commercial training or coaching centers for exemption under Notification No. 10/03-ST.2. Applicability of penalty on the centers.3. Interpretation of the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Malappuram Distt. Parallel College Association v. Union of India.Eligibility for Exemption:The Tribunal's Final Order remanded the case to quantify the liability of commercial training or coaching centers, examining their entitlement to the benefit of SSI Notification No. 6/05-S.T. The applicants argued that the Tribunal erred in denying exemption, citing the Hon'ble Kerala High Court's judgment, which they believe supports their case. However, the Tribunal clarified that the Kerala High Court's judgment was specific to parallel colleges in Kerala and did not declare the relevant section unconstitutional for other educational institutions. The Tribunal found that the denial of exemption was based on the centers collecting entire fees from students, with a portion going to the University and the rest to the centers. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for a different interpretation, stating it falls outside the scope of the application for rectification of mistake.Applicability of Penalty:The issue of penalty was also raised, with the applicants contending that it should have been set aside due to their bona fide belief of non-liability to pay service tax. The Tribunal remanded the penalty decision for further consideration. However, the Tribunal found no error in this decision, as a fresh decision on penalty was warranted, and no apparent mistake arose from the order of remand.Interpretation of Kerala High Court Judgment:The applicants sought a review of the final order based on their interpretation of the Kerala High Court's judgment and the notification. However, the Tribunal deemed this request as an attempt to seek a different interpretation not permissible under the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the judgment's scope was limited to parallel colleges in Kerala and did not apply to other categories of educational institutions or training centers. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that other grounds were not considered, noting the absence of any record supporting additional pleas during the appeal hearing.In conclusion, the Vice-President of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, found no merit in the applicant's arguments and rejected their applications, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decisions were based on a thorough examination of the issues at hand.