TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissionerate, Chennai called for documents from the Appellant. In the course of their enquiry, a statement was recorded from the Director of CPA, and on a perusal of the business partner agreement dated 24.11.2007 entered into between M/s. Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics, Mumbai and SEPL, the Department it appeared to the Department that the role of MAAC, Mumbai and SEPL with regard to service tax liability are as follows: MAAC, Mumbai Providing taxable services to franchisees all over India including M/s. Synergic Envision Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018 under the category of Franchise services as defined under Section 65 (105) (zze) of the Finance Act. Liable to pay service tax for franchise services only; claim to have paid service tax for Commercial Coaching and Training Services. They cannot cover the franchisees under centralised registration and undertake the responsibility to pay service tax for the taxable services provided by such Franchisees. Synergic Envision Private Limited, Chennai Providing taxable services to students under the category of Commercial Coaching and Training Services as defined under Section 65 (105) (zzc) of the Finance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranchisee to complete all assessments for taxes, duties & levies under all the applicable laws and the Franchisor shall in no way, be responsible for any fines, penalties & prosecution for violation of any provisions of such applicable laws. The Department therefore demanded short paid service tax of Rs.2,46,037/- for the period from April 2011 to June 2012 along with appropriate interest and proposing penalty under Section 76 of the Act. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority vide a common Order in Original No. 19 & 20/2014, dated 28.03.2014 confirmed the demand of Rs.15,71,907/- as proposed in Show Cause Notice No.462 / 2011 along with equivalent penalty under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77 and as regards the Show Cause Notice No.11/2013 ibid dropped a demand of Rs.78,171/- and confirmed the demand of Rs.1,67,866/- along with applicable interest and imposed penalty under Section 76 as specified therein. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals - II), who, however rejected the appeals. Hence these appeals. 6. Shri N. Bharath Kumar, Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing for the Appellant conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with. He draws attention to clause 7 detailing the consideration and payments, pointing out that the Appellant collects the receipts from the students who had enrolled in the courses by paying fee in the form of cash, cheque or Demand Draft in favour of MAAC and the collected amount is deposited into separate bank account of MAAC. MAAC will discharge the service tax liability on the entire course fees and as per the agreement MAAC pays the Appellant 80% of the collection net of service tax after adjustment of debit notes for the supply of course materials, advertising, stationary, Cambridge fees etc. and if any tax deducted at source as applicable. Ld. consultant argued that in effect, the Appellant as a business partner, was rendering the training services along with MAAC who was the principal service provider. It is submitted that the challan copies of the taxes paid by MAAC as furnished by the Appellant demonstrates that the tax liability for the period May 2007 to March 2011 has been duly discharged by MAAC and that there is no loss of revenue to the Government. It was also submitted that the Departmental audit conducted at the premises of MAAC demonstrates that MAAC has been a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find that both the Show Cause Notices in the respective appeals are vague and lacks details of the statutory provisions invoked to bring the activities of the appellant within the alleged taxable services rendered. Apart from contending that the appellant is rendering "commercial coaching and training services", the SCN neither provides the statutory definition amongst the various definitions given under Section 65 indicating what exactly is commercial training or coaching, or what is a 'commercial training or coaching centre' as defined thereunder. The show cause notices also do not indicate the exact taxable service, amongst the numerous taxable services indicated under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 that would warrant classifying the appellant's activity under the alleged taxable service and in fact the first Show Cause Notice does not even invoke the charging provision to foist the levy of service tax on the appellant. Surprisingly, the Adjudicating Authority in the OIO or the Appellate Authority in the impugned OIA also has chosen to confirm and uphold the demands respectively, without noticing the fact that the SCN itself is bereft of the statutory basis that is ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harges the service tax liability. The said contention has been reiterated in the relied upon statement of the Appellant's Director, and has remained uncontroverted. The SCN itself has conceded that MAAC has not passed on the service tax share to the appellant. Additionally, the appellant had provided the centralised Service Tax Registration details of MAAC. The letter of Maya Entertainment dated 10-11-2011 in response to the query from the Jurisdictional Audit Team at Mumbai, furnishing the service tax details for the appellant's premises at Alwar-pet along with the TR 6 challans that also indicate payment under Commercial Training and Coaching Centre Tax collections along with their ST 3 returns for the FY 2010-2011, lend credence to their submissions that the service tax liability stood discharged at the end of MAAC Mumbai with respect to the commercial coaching and training services rendered that are being sought to be taxed again at the end of the Appellant. We have perused the case law relied on by the Ld. A.R and the facts therein are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case as noticed supra and is hence inapplicable. We notice that, the Board, in....