Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cochin Shipyard Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 12 February, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order Nos. 20215 - 20216 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/29233/2013 in ST/28538/2013-DB ST/Stay/29234/2013 in ST/28539/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/28538/2013 & ST/28539/2013-DB [Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 156 & 157/2013 dated 27/08/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Cochin] Cochin Shipyard Ltd. P O Bag No. 1653, Perumanoor, P.O., Cochin - 682 015 Kerala Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Cochin CR Building, IS Press Road, Ernakulam, Cochin - 682 018, Kerala Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Kurian Thomas, Advocate Menon & Pai Advocates P.B.No.1911, I.S. Press Road, Ernakulam, Cochin - 682 018 For the Appellant Mr. A.K. Nigam, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 12/02/2014 Date of Decision: 12/02/2014 Order Per: B.S.V.MURTHY The appellant is a wholly owned Government of India Company mainly engaged in the activity of ship building and ship repair works. The appellant has a marine Engineering Training Institute and conducts courses for engineering graduates, related to engineering topics, advanced fire fighting and elementary first aid course.
2. The department on a premise that the courses conducted by the appellant would fall under the category Commercial Training or Coaching Services, issued show-cause notices demanding service tax on the fees collected by it from the students. The said proposal in the show-cause notices were confirmed by the original and appellate authorities. The appeals are against the confirmation of the demand of service tax vide common order-in-appeal dated 27.08.2013 in order-in-appeal Nos. 157 & 158/2013-ST passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kochi.
3. In the impugned order besides confirming the demand for service tax by invoking extended period penalties under various Sections of Finance Act have also been imposed. The counsel for the appellants submitted the following points for consideration:
? The courses are approved by the Director General of Shipping, Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India.
? The institute, its curriculum, number of seats, format of the certificate etc. are decided and approved by the Director General of Shipping.
? On successful completion of the course the students are given a certificate approved by the Government of India, which is a post graduate qualification mandated by the Director General of Shipping under the powers conferred on the said authority, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.
? The recognition under UGC or AICTE is not required and the observation of the appellate Commissioner to the contrary is without considering the true scope of the term recognized by law for the time being in force contained in Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994.
? The appellate Commissioner erred in not adverting to the documents produced by the appellant before him and which is produced as Annexure-D to the appeal memorandum.
? The Director General of Shipping is the appropriate authority competent to fix the criteria for Competency of Officers of the Ships as per Section 76 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 read with Section 7 of the said Act.
? The approval of the institute by the Director General of Shipping and the competence of the said authority needs to be treated as recognized by law.
? The course conducted by the appellant, which is an institute approved by the Director General of Shipping is a mandatory eligibility criteria for entry into the Merchant Navy.
? Therefore the course conducted by the appellant, which led to the issuance of a certificate recognized by law, stands excluded from the purview of taxation under the category Commercial Training or Coaching Services.
4. He relied upon the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering Vs. Union of India [2013 (30) S.T.R. 689 (Del.)].
5. After hearing both the sides, we find that the lower authorities in this case were handicapped by the fact that during the relevant time the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi was not available. The documents submitted and relied upon by the learned counsel and the appellants require to be considered to examine whether the case of the appellants is similar to the one which was under consideration by the Honble High Court of Delhi. Since the issue is contentious and requires close scrutiny of the documents and verification of the facts submitted, in our opinion it would be appropriate that the adjudicating authority reconsiders the issue afresh. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the original authority to consider the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the issues involved.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in court on 12.02.2014) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss