ICFAI Branch Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
M/s ICFAI, Branch Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) during relevant period was a constituent of Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India, Hyderabad (for brevity, ICFAI Hyderabad’) which was inter-alia engaged in imparting educational programmes in the areas of finance, banking, insurance, accounting, law, management, information technology, arts, commerce, education, science and technology, at bachelor’s and master’s level on full time campus and distance learning modes. Upon successful completion of the aforesaid courses degree certificates were awarded by ICFAI University Dehradun established under the respective State Act and recognised by UGC under Section 2(1) of UGC Act, 1956. The aforesaid educational programmes help the students to get employed with various organisations.
1.1 With effect from 01.10.2007, all the of Appellant transferred to the ICFAI Academy. Thus, the present appeals have been filed by ICFAI Academy against the Order-in-Appeal No(s). Commr(A)/69&70/VDR-1/2012 dated 08.02.2012 issued by Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara-1.
1.2 The Appellant used to accept the application from interested candidates for various courses and forward the same to their centralised office at Hyderabad for all accounting purposes.
1.3 An investigation was conducted upon ICFAI and its associates all over India, which resulted into issuance of multiple show cause notices proposing the demand of service tax along with applicable cess, interest and penalty, for the period of October 2007 to September 2009.
1.4 On the similar lines Appellant branch at Vadodara, Gujarat also received show cause notice(s) dated 06.02.2009, 24.07.2009 and 03.11.2009, inter alia, alleging that:-
a) Appellant had provided taxable services under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching” and collected fees during the relevant period.
b) Appellant is neither recognized by the UGC nor have any prior permission/approval of regularly statutory bodies like AICTE, NCTE, Bar Council of India and Distance Education Council for running professional/technical/distance education courses as required under the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulation, 2003 Therefore, the Appellant appears to be providing services taxable under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching Service.’
c) The Appellant had neither obtained registration nor filed ST-3 returns.
d) The Appellant did not pay service tax and had suppressed the material facts regarding the taxable services provided, collection of taxable amounts from the students and thereby contravened the provisions of Sections 68, 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 & 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
1.5 On the above grounds, it was expressed that the Appellant has provided taxable services under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching Service and had collected fee to Rs. 41,61,000/- and Rs. 56,68,219/- as consideration towards the aforesaid service from the interested candidate. Consequently, the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 12,14,982/- (for the period between October 2007 to September 2008) and Rs. 10,81,809/- (for the between October to September 2009) along with applicable interest and penalty was proposed to be recovered from the Appellant.
1.6 The adjudicating authority namely, learned Additional Commissioner adjudicated the above Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant vide common order in original no 9/DEM/STJC/D-III/10-11 dated 30.11.2010 and upheld the demand of service tax as proposed therein along with applicable interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed an appeal to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeals vide order in appeal No. COMMR (A)/69 & 70/VDR-I/2012 dated 08.02.2012whereby he confirmed the demand of service tax confirmed by the adjudicating authority along with applicable interest and penalties. Being aggrieved by the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal.
2. Shri Jigar Shah along with Shri Amber Kumrawat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this issue is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble CESTAT Ahmadabad in the case of ICFAI Branch-Vadodara vs CCE & ST reported at 2018 (8) TMI-556-(Tri.-Amd.). Therefore, following the said decision of the appellant itself, the impugned orders are not sustainable. Hence, the same are liable to be set aside and appeals deserve to be allowed. He also placed reliance on the following judgements:
