M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member - Heard both sides extensively on the stay petition.

2. The appellant is a subsidiary of Sun, USA. The appellants along with Authorized Sun Education Centre (ASEC partners) are involved in facilitating conduct of online examination for awarding various certificates by Sun, USA. The online examination and evaluation are undertaken by M/s. Prometric, USA. The appellant claims that they are involved in "sale of vouchers" which basically provides a password to a prospective candidate for the purpose of appearing for the examination. The Commissioner has held that the appellants are involved in rendering 'Business Auxiliary Service' and on the amounts objected by the appellants from various candidates demanded service tax amounting to Rs. 8,50,98,796/- relating to the period from October, 2004 to September, 2008 along with interest and imposed penalties.

3.1 Learned advocate for the appellant submits that they are only engaged in sale of Prometric vouchers and that they are not rendering any service at all. Alternatively he submits that if activities are treated as rendering of service, the same should be treated as rendering of services in relation to education and that they are eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004.

3.2 He further submits that there was audit of the appellant's activities by the department during 2005, and audit notes were issued in April, 2006 and in pursuance to the said audit notes, discussion meeting was held with the Commissioner on 1-1-2009. During the audit and subsequent discussions, the department proposed levy of service tax on these very activities under the head 'Commercial Coaching and Training' and subsequently they have changed the view and issued a show-cause notice on 6-4-2010 proposing demand under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' relating to the period October, 2004 to March, 2009. Therefore, substantial part of the demand is time-barred. According to him, about Rs. 1,26,96,335/- will be within the normal period of limitation.

4. Learned Commissioner (AR) reiterating the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner submits that the activities of the appellants in relation to award of certificates by Sun, USA cannot be treated as sale activities. Further, no coaching or training is given by the appellants to treat their activities as part of any educational programme. Further, he submits that these grounds have not been taken before the Commissioner.

5.1 We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The prospective candidates do not, prima facie, have a relationship of student-teacher in the programme leading to issue of certificates by Sun, USA. The learning/training, if any, is taken from other sources and the appellants are enabling conduct of examination and evaluation. The claim that appellants are selling e-vouchers may not deserve to be accepted. Their activities are, prima facie, in relation to conduct of online examination and evaluation by Prometric in relation to certifying professional competence of the aspiring candidates in various spheres of software skills. Further, we find that the claim to the eligibility of Notification No. 14/2004 has been made for the first time before us and has not been raised before the Commissioner. This claim requires to be gone into in detail at the time of final hearing.

5.2 Further, in view of the audit visits in 2005 leading to discussion on the very same activities in 2009 by the Commissioner, the issue of show-cause notice for the period from October, 2004 to March, 2009, invoking extended period of limitation may not be justified.

5.3 No financial hardship has been pleaded before us.

6. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to deposit Rs. 1 crore (Rupees One crore only) within 6 weeks from today and report to the Assistant Registrar on 6-8-2012 and the Assistant Registrar to report to the Benc