AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning Services' upheld the demand of service tax of Rs.37,83,694/- in respect of show-cause notice dated 19.4.2011 and demand of Rs.7,92,648/- in respect of show-cause notice dated 20.10.2011 allowing the benefit of dropping the penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the period of dispute in the first show-cause notice is from 1.5.2005 to 31.03.2010 and the second show-cause notice is from 1.4.2010 to 31.03.2011. It is submitted that both the programs conducted by them are in the nature of workshops/seminars being conducted for various commodity boards. The definition of 'Commercial Coaching or Training Centre' prior to 1.5.2011 there was a specific exclusion of any institute / establishments which issues any certificate or diploma or degree etc., recognised by law. Since they are also engaged in conducting courses such as PG Diploma and MBA courses which are recognised by AICTE, the institute itself is clearly excluded, hence, the liability does not arise. They also rely on CBEC Circular No.59/2003 dated 20.06.2003 to claim the benefit of exclusion. With regard to suppression, it is submitted that the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the expression commercial training or coaching centre" occurring in this sub-clause and in clauses (26), (27) and (90a) shall include any centre or institute, by whatever name called, where training or coaching is imparted for consideration, whether or not such centre or institute is registered as a trust or a society or similar other organisation under any law for the time being in force and carrying on its activity with or without profit motive and the expression "commercial training or coaching" shall be construed accordingly. 4.1. Therefore, as per the above definition only 'any institute or establishment which issues any certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognized by law was excluded. So, the only question arises is whether the services rendered by the appellant fall under the above excluded category. It is fact that the appellant conducted Short Term Executive Programmes (STEP) and Reach Out Programmes to the planters and officials of Commodity Board of India namely Tea Board of India, Species Board and Rubber Board. The only claim made by the appellant is that the above programmes are not in the nature of Training and Coaching but ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertificates recognized by law they clearly do not fall under the exclusion clause, hence, liable to pay service tax. 7. Similar view was held in the case of I2IT Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai: 2014 (34) S.T.R. 214 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein it was observed as: 5.4 The view taken by this Tribunal in the case of ICFAI [2009 (14) S.T.R. 220 (Tri.-Bang)] and Indian School of Business (ISB in short) reported in 2010 (17) S.T.R. 83 (Tri.-Bang.) was that imparting knowledge and conducting courses at higher level such as post graduate level cannot be termed as commercial training or coaching centre irrespective of whether the degrees so offered were recognized by law or not. In these cases, it was further held that since the institutions were registered under Societies Registration Act for educational purposes (in the case of ICFAI) and was a non-profit company (in the case of ISB), their activities could not be considered as "commercial". However, these decisions of the Tribunal were set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 14-5-2010 in Civil Appeal No. 579 of 2010 (Commissioner v. ISB) [2010 (19) S.T.R. 481 (S.C.)] and order dated 14-2-2011 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4820-4823 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a trust or a society or similar other organization under any law for the time being in force. Certain aspects which, before the above amendment, were material to consideration of the question whether a given centre or institute would fit in the definition of "commercial training or coaching centre" under Section 65(27) and whether its activities would fit in the definition of "commercial training or coaching" under Section 65(26) have been rendered immaterial by the amendment. Whether or not the centre or institute is registered as a trust or a society or a similar organization under any law is immaterial now. The name of the centre or institute is immaterial. Whether the activity of the centre or institute is with or without profit motive is also immaterial. Upon the above amendment, what matters is whether the centre or institute has imparted training or coaching for a consideration. If it has done so, it will get covered by the definition of "commercial training or coaching centre" and its activity will get covered by the definition of "commercial training or coaching". The consideration for training or coaching per se determines the commercial character of the activity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owledge this. Therefore a line cannot be drawn to separate "education" from. "training or coaching". It is also pertinent to note that Section 65(27) as it stood during the period of dispute excludes institutes/establishments which issue any certificate or diploma or degree or any "educational qualification" recognized by law for the time being in force. The converse of this would be that institutes/establishments which do not issue any certificate or diploma or degree or any "educational qualification" recognized by law for the time being in force as well as institutes/establishments which issue certificates/diplomas/degrees/educational qualifications not recognized by law stand included in the definition of "commercial training or coaching centre" under Section 65(27) of the Act. Institutes and establishments issuing educational qualifications can certainly be called educational institutions. But the ICFAI entities before us were imparting lessons or skills or knowledge in various subjects to students by collecting fees and other charges but they did not issue to them any certificate, diploma, degree or other educational qualification recognized by law for the time being in force....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... list of private/self-financed universities under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act, there is no evidence of any of them having issued any certificate, diploma, degree or other educational qualification to the students from whom they collected fees and other charges during the period of dispute. It was not even shown that these so-ailed universities were authorized, by or under the State Acts, to issue certificates/diplomas/degrees/other educational qualifications to the students. It was claimed that the certificates, degrees, etc. were issued to the students by these universities in the name of "ICFAI UNIVERSITY". We have already rejected this claim as untenable, given the fact that what was called ICFAI UNIVERSITY was a legally unrecognized consortium or conglomerate of the ICFAI societies and universities, with no legal sanction to issue such certificates, degrees etc. Therefore, none of the so-called universities can claim immunity to levy of service tax under Section 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of being covered by the exclusion clause of the definition of "commercial training or coaching centre" under Section 65(27) of the Act. 17. For the reasons al....