I. C. Financial Analysts of India VS Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-II

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
P.G. CHACKO, M. VEERAIYAN, JJ.
I.C. Financial Analysts of India -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-II -Respondent
Final Order Nos. 514 - 520 of 2012 Appeal Nos. ST/ 32, 39, 40, 46, 365,392 OF 2007,194 OF 2008
Decided On : 31-07-2012

Advocates Appeared:
V. Sridharan, G. Shivadass,P.R.V. Ramanan, R.K. Singla

ORDER

P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - The first four appeals were filed by the respective assessees against a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-Il. These appeals are directed against demands of service tax and education cess (with interest) confirmed against the assessees and penalties imposed on them by the adjudicating authority. The demands of service tax are under the head "commercial training or coaching service" and for the periods shown below :

Appeal No.	Appellant	Period	Service tax + education cess demanded	Penalties
S.T./32/2007	The ICFAI Society, Hyderabad	7/2003 to 3/2005	Rs. 18.92 crores	Rs. 18.92 crores u/s 78 Rs. 1000/- u/s 77 Rs. 150 per day u/s 76 .
S.T./39/2007	The ICFAI University, Dehradun	12/2003 to 3/2005	Rs. 8,69,716/-	Rs. 8,69,716 u/s 78 Rs. 1000/- u/s 77 Rs. 150 per day u/s 76
S.T./40/2007	The ICFAIAN Foundation, Hyderabad	7/2003 to 3/2005	Rs. 9.44 cr.	Rs. 9.44 cr. u/s 78 Rs. 1000/- u/s 77 Rs. 150 per day u/s 76
ST./46/2007	The ICFAI University, Tripura	8/2004 to 3/2005	Rs. 1,62,205/-	Rs. 1,62,205/- u/s78 Rs. 1000/- u/s 77 Rs. 150 per day u/s 76

The two appeals of the Department are directed against different orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad setting aside the demands of service tax confirmed under the same head against the respondents by the original authorities. The particulars of these appeals are given below :

Appeal No.	Appellant	Respondent	Period	Service tax + education cess	Penalties
S.T./365/20 07	CST, Hyderabad-II	Badruka Institute of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad	7/2003 to 9/2005	Rs. 22,77,288/-	Rs. 22,77,288/-u/s 78 Rs. 1000/- u/s 77 Rs. 150 per day u/s 76
S.T./392/2007	CST, Hyderabad-II	Institute of Insurance & Risk Management, Hyderabad	3/2003 to 3/2006	Rs. 4,76,013/-	Rs. 4,76,013/- u/s 78 Rs. 1000/- u/s 77 Rs. 100 per day u/s 76

The remaining appeal of another assessee is against an order of the Commissioner demanding service tax under the same head, imposing penalties etc. as shown below :-

Appeal No.	Appellant	Period	Service tax + education cess demanded	Penalties
S.T./194/2008	Indian School of Business, Hyderabad	7/2003 to 3/2007	Rs. 21.82 cr.	Rs. 12.25 cr. u/s 78 Rs. 1.05 cr. u/s 76

2. The earlier Final Orders passed by this Bench in all these appeals were set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 14-5-2010 in Civil Appeal No. 579 of 2010 (CST v. Great Lakes Institute of Management Ltd., Order dated 25-10-2010 in Civil Appeal No. 9539 of 2010 (Commissioner v. BIFT)[2011 (21) STR J9 (SC)], Order dated 4-2-2011 in Civil Appeal No. 5453 of 2010 (Commissioner v. IIRM)[2011 (22) STR J198 (SC)] and Order dated 14-2-2011 in Civil Appeals Nos. 4820-4823 of 2009 (Commissioner v. ICFA1 Institutions)and all the cases were remanded for fresh decision. As per these remand orders, the Tribunal has to reconsider the substantive issue in the light of the explanation added (with retrospective effect from 1-7-2003) to clause (zzc) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Finance Act, 2010. One of the remand orders (Order dated 14-2-2011 in the cases of the ICFAI institutions(supra) reads as follows :

"Delay condoned.

Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the judgment passed by Three Judges Bench of this Court in Commissioner of S.T. v. Great Lakes Institute of Management Ltd., 2010 (19) STR 481 (SC). The issues that arise for consideration in the present appeals are similar with that of the aforesaid appeals which was decided by Three Judges Bench of this Court. While allowing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Chennai, the Three Judges referred to the newly inserted Explanation in Section 65(105)(zzc) of Finance Act, 1994 by Finance Act, 2010 which was made effective from 1st of July, 2003.

In view of the fact that the aforesaid Explanation has been inserted in the Act, this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the case de novo in the light of the Explanation inserted