Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Great Lakes Institute Of Management ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 31 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008[9]S.T.R.560
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The lower authority has demanded service tax of over Rs. 1.40 crores from the appellants for the period April 2004 to July 2006 by treating them as a 'commercial training or coaching centre' under Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants, a company working in terms of Section 25 of the Companies Act, provided coaching to students registered with the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago under the Yale University (USA), during the period of dispute. They collected fees from such students and applied their profits to their own infrastructural and other developments in terms of Section 25 of the Companies Act. The above demand of service tax is on the gross amount collected by the appellants from their students during the above period. The demand has been confirmed against them in adjudication of a show-cause notice, which invoked the larger period of limitation. The appellants are contesting the demand both on merits and on limitation.
2. After hearing learned Counsel for them as also learned SDR for the Revenue, we note that the primary question arising for consideration in this case is whether the activity of coaching students against fees would merit consideration as a 'commercial' activity. It is the appellant's case that, as they were not applying their profits to any purpose other than their own infrastructural and other developments, they could not be called a 'commercial coaching centre' and, for that matter, their activity could not be termed 'commercial.' This argument has been rejected by learned Commissioner. Right now, the prima facie view taken by the coordinate Bench at Bangalore in similar cases of similar institutions is in favour of the appellants vide Stay Order Nos. 172-175/2007 dated 28-3-2007 reported in 2007(8) S.T.R. 41 (Tri.) : 2007-TIOL-811-CESTAT-BANG and Stay Order No. 144/2007 reported in 2007 (6) S.T.R. 319 (T) : 2007-TIOL-613-CESTAT-BANG. On this basis, we are inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in the present case also. It is ordered accordingly.
3. Having regard to the high stake involved in the case, we would also like to dispose of the appeal itself as early as possible. Accordingly, the appeal is posted to 14 December 2007 for final hearing.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)