TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant to challenge the order dated 06/19.11.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner that confirmed the demand proposed in the two show cause notices dated 15.04.2011 and 07.10.2011 for the period from April 2009 to March 2010, and April 2010 to March 2011 respectively with interest and penalty. 2. The appellant is engaged in providing computer education in Animation and Cinematics. The appellant entered into a Business Partner Agreement with Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics [MAAC], wherein the appellant received the rights to conduct the courses offered by MAAC in Graphic Animation and Cinematics. 3. The responsibilities of MAAC, as per clause 3 of the Agreement, are as under: a. Provide course material and updat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oaching' service for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 basis the allegation that the appellant was engaged in providing the said services to the students. This show cause notice was adjudicated upon and the demand was dropped as the service tax liability on the gross value received from the students was discharged by MAAC. The appeal filed by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) was, however, allowed. An appeal was, thereafter, preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal in M/s. Samadhan Systems (P) Ltd. versus C.C.E., Jaipur-I [2018 (2) TMI 1049 - CESTAT New Delhi]. The Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of 'commercial training or coaching' service, particul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aling with another coaching centre of MAAC, the Tribunal, in M/s. Pixel Effects vs. C.C.E. and ST, Bhopal [2018 (4) TMI 835-CESTAT New Delhi], relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Samadhan Systems, held that no service tax was payable under the category of 'commercial training or coaching' service; (iii) The aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal were brought to the attention of the Commissioner (Appeals), but the impugned order has been passed in complete disregard to the orders of the Tribunal; (iv) Business Partner Agreement between the appellant and MAAC has led to a revenue sharing arrangement. MAAC and the appellant were jointly rendering services to the students and tax on such services has been discharged by MAA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the Tribunal rendered in the case of the appellant itself in Samadhan Systems. The decision relates to an earlier period from 2004-05 to 2008-09, while the dispute in the present appeal is from April 2009 to March 2011 and holds that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of 'commercial training or coaching' service, particularly when tax on such service had been discharged by MAAC. The relevant portion of said decision of the Tribunal in Samadhan Systems is reproduced below: "2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing computer education in animation and cinematics. They have made an arrangement with Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics (MAAC). The agreement provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice Tax. He recorded that full Service Tax liability on the gross value received by the students has been discharged by MAAC. There is no question of further confirming any Service Tax against the appellant. The Revenue preferred appeal against the said order. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 9. The admitted facts are that the appellants had Agreement with M/s. MAAC. The said Agreement stipulates various obligations / responsibilities of both the parties. The students who got admitted for the courses pay a consideration, which is credited to M/s. MAAC in full. We have perused the sample invoices. This fact cannot be disputed. The full consideration so received by M/s. MAAC has been subjected to Service Tax under commercial training and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of the Tribunal, the confirmation of demand by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. 16. This apart, a conjoint reading of the Agreement, coupled with the intent of the parties, shows that it was to give effect to an arrangement which is in the nature of co-venture where two parties work for a common purpose, i.e., rendering commercial training/coaching service to the students. Such an agreement has been held to be in the nature of a revenue sharing arrangement by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in Niraj Prasad, which decision relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Samadhan Systems. The relevant portion of the decision in Niraj Prasad is reproduced below: "32. We express our inability to accept view tak....