Case Law Details
IDP Education India Private Limited Vs Additional Director General of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
It is undisputed that the appellant has an agreement only with IDP Australia. The appellant recruits or facilitates students in India, but does not get any remuneration from Australian universities. For the students who are recruited or admitted by the university in Foreign Country, recommended by appellant in India, IDP Australia gets paid by the Australian/Foreign universities. A share of that commission is given to the appellant by IDP Australia. This scheme of arrangement clearly shows that the IDP Australia is providing services to the foreign universities and is receiving consideration for the same. Insofar as recruitment of students in India is concerned, IDP Australia has created the appellant as a fully owned subsidiary, and has sub- contracted this work to the appellant. Nothing has been brought on record in the show cause notice or in the order to show that the appellant has a direct contract with the foreign universities. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant is liasioning or acting as intermediary between the foreign universities and IDP Australia. All that is evident from the records is that the appellant is providing the services which have been subcontracted to it by M/s IDP Australia. As a sub contractor, it is receiving commission from the main contractor for its services. The main contractor – IDP Australia, in turn, is receiving commission from the foreign universities who pay a percentage of the tuition fee to IDP Australia. From the records, we find that Revenue has not established that the appellant is acting as an intermediary between M/s IDP Australia and the foreign universities, as alleged or held in the impugned order and the show cause notice. Hence, we find in favour of the appellant on merits.
We also find that on the exact same services a show cause notice was issued earlier covering the period 1.4.20 12 to 3 1.3.2013 and which was dropped holding that the services rendered by the appellant to IDP Australia, amounted to export of services. All that has changed is that DGCEI has picked up an issue which has already been settled and took a different view and issued the subsequent show cause notice and confirmed the demand. If the DGCEI was aggrieved by the earlier order which was passed, the right course could have been for it to appeal to a higher judicial forum. A show cause notice issued on the same issue which has already been settled, simply because DGCEI holds a different view, is in our considered view not sustainable. On this ground also, the impugned order needs to be set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
