TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken consultancy and research projects during 2006-07 which would fall within the ambit of Management Consultancy Service and that on the amounts received by them during 2004-05 to 2008-09 for providing such services, they were liable to service tax with interest thereon (iii) that NIMSME were running (i) Kalangan (ii) Musins (iii) Utsav, Vanstahli and Frerena outdoor locations and Amphi-theatre and were lending it to the public for organizing social meetings and social gatherings, which would fall within the category of "Mandap Keeper Services" and "Renting of Immovable Property Services" and that on the amounts collected by appellant on such services during 2004-05 to 2008-09, they were liable to pay service tax with interest. Department thus took the view that the activities of the appellants were liable to service tax under various heads namely "Commercial Training and Coaching Services", "Management Consultancy Services", "Mandap Keeper Services" and "Renting of Immovable Property Services". Accordingly, show cause notices dt. 22.10.2009, 20.10.2010, 22.10.2011, 23.04.2013 and 23.05.2014, 01.04.2015 & 26.04.2016 were issued demanding service tax amounts under these heads. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uing denovo order to grant exclusion of amounts received from Governments for sponsored programmes like grants-in-aid etc., where no fees were collected from the participants and the programmes were conducted only as per orders issued by government from time to time, and for re-determining in the context the actual service tax payable in each appeal matter. 2.2 Ld. Advocate also further extended his above submissions appeal wise as under: I. A PPEAL No. ST/2103/2010 [A rising out of OIO No.23/2010 dated 28-4-2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Hyderabad) Sl. No. Service Tax demanded under Period in dispute Amount of Service Tax Demanded Penalty/ Interest 1 Commercial Training and Coaching Services 2004-05 to 2008-09 Rs.2,84,86,402/- i.Rs.3,88,00,000/-u/s.78 of the Finance Act, 1994 ii. Rs. 5,000/-u/s.77 of the Finance Act, 1994 iii. Interest u/s.75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2 Management Consultant Services 2004-05 to 2008-09 Rs.84,36,616/- 3 Mandap Keeper Services 2004-05 to 2008-09 Rs.18,75,969/- SCN No.153/2009, dt.22.10.2009 As per the first show cause noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taxable, the tax is Rs. 9,29,364/-. Towards Mandap Keeper services an amount of Rs. 10,47,391/-was collected. The tax is Rs. 1,29,458/-. There was also service of renting of immovable property. The amount collected was R s.2,53,191/-. The tax is Rs. 31,294/-. Total tax payable for the period is Rs. 9,29,364/-. A pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs as already made. III. APPEAL No.ST/28392/2013 [Arising out of OIO No.32/2013 dated 30-8-2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Hyderabad) Sl. No. Service Tax demanded under Period in dispute Amount of Service Tax Demanded Penalty/Interest 1 Commercial Training or Coaching Services 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Rs.2,22,66,166/-& s.2,73,46,630/- i.Rs.200/-or 2% per day u/s.76 and Rs. 200/-per day u/s.77(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994. (For period 2010-2011) ii. Rs. 200/-or 2% per day (Rs.100/-or 1% from 8.4.2011) u/s.76 and Rs. 200/-per day u/s.77(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994. (For period 2011-2012) iii. Interest u/s.75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2 Mandap Keeper Services 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Rs.2,31,694/-&Rs.1,51,613/- 3 Renting of Immovable Proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 18-7-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax Commissionerate, Hyderabad) Sl.No. Service Tax demanded under Period in dispute Amount of Service Tax Demanded Penalty/Interest 1 Commercial Training or Coaching Services 2013-2014 Rs.5,19,58,407/-u/s.73(1) of the Finance Act, 1944 i.Rs.51,95,841/-u/s.76 of the Finance Act, 1944. ii. Rs. 10,000/-u/s.77 of the Finance Act, 1944. iii. Interest u/s.75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2 Mandap Keeper Services 2013-2014 Rs.1,32,899/-u/s.73(2) of the Finance Act, 1944 SCN OR No.33/2015, Dt.01.04.2015 The period impugned in the notice is 2013-2014. The total amount received as grants was Rs. 40,42,26,185/-. This amount is not taxable. The total fees collected from participants in other programmes is Rs. 1,50,74,042/-. The amount only is taxable to an amount of Rs. 18,63, 152/-. In addition the receipt from Mandap Keeper services is Rs. 10,75,234/-. The tax payable is Rs. 1,32,899/-. The pre-deposit is Rs. 38,97,000/-. There is an excess in balance to an extent of Rs. 19,00,949/-. VI. APPEAL No.ST/30632/2017 [Arising out of OIO No. HYD-SVTAX-000-COM-166-16-17 dated 12-1-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince by Notification No.24/2004-CE dt. 10.09.2004, the vocational training given for improving skills, although not recognized, is exempted. 5. It has been consistently held by higher appellate forums that there can be no liability to service tax in respect of training programmes conducted on the basis of grants-in-aid received by the institutions set up by the Government for specific objectives. The Tribunal in the case of Apitco Ltd. Vs CST Hyderabad-2010 (20) STR 475 (Tri.-bang.) has set aside the demand of service tax holding that service tax is not leviable on the grants-in-aid received by the assessee from the Central and State Governments given as project implementing agency of the Government. The relevant portions of the Tribunal's order are extracted herein be low:- "3. The assessee, namely M/s. APITCO Ltd., is an organization promoted jointly by several financial institutions including the Andhra Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation and nationalized and other banks. The assessee registered themselves as 'consulting engineers' with the department as early as in 1997 for the purpose of payment of service tax. Ever since then, they have been paying service tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation, to a client, in one or more disciplines of science or technology." The department took the view that, in the implementation of the governmental schemes, the assessee was rendering "scientific or technical consultancy" service to the governments concerned. It is this view which made its way into the show-cause notices and the subsequent proceedings which culminated in the Commissioner's orders. ... .... ..... 6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that the assessee-company had implemented welfare schemes for the Central and State governments for the benefit of the poor or otherwise vulnerable/weaker sections of the society and collected grants-in-aid from the governments concerned. It is not in dispute that these grants-in-aid had been totally utilized for implementing the welfare schemes. Nothing over and above these grants-in-aid was received by the assessee from any of the governments. In other words, the assessee did not receive any consideration for "any service' to the governments. Therefore, we hold that, in the implementation of the Governmental schemes, the assessee as implementing agency did not render any taxable "servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder. 7. For the reasons noted above, we hold that any amount of service tax is not leviable on the grants-in-aid received by the assessee from the governments, as project-implementing agency of the governments, during the period of dispute. The assessee has also made out a good case on the ground of limitation against a major part of the demand of duty raised in the first show-cause notice. As early as in January 2004, the assessee had furnished all the relevant facts to the department through a letter addressed to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Later on, in 2006, they stated all these facts once again in a letter addressed to the Superintendent of Service Tax. The show-cause notice in question was issued on 13-6-2006 invoking the first proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 on the ground of suppression of facts. We have no hesitation to hold that this allegation of suppression of facts by the assessee is not tenable." The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2011 (23) STR J 94 (SC). The ratio of Apitco case was relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organization Ltd. Vs CCE Bh....