CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI.

PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO.3 Service Tax Appeal No.50713 of 2019 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.36/COMMR/ST/BPL-II/2018 dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal]

Rajeev Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalay, Appellant Airport Road, Gandhi Nagar, Bhopal VERSUS The Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, Respondent Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal GST Bhawan, 35-C, Administrative Area, Arera Hills, Bhopal APPEARANCE Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, Chartered Accountant for the appellant.

Shri S.K.Meena, Authorised Representative for the respondent.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING:03.04.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 26.06.2025 FINAL ORDER NO.50938/2025 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal is filed by Rajeev Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalay¹ against the impugned Order-in-Original No. 36/COMMR/ST/BPL-II/2018 dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal, wherein

1. the Appellant the demand of service tax of Rs.6,07,01,622/- was confirmed alongwith interest and penalty under section 75 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in imparting higher education to students. They were not registered with service tax department for payment of service tax. Intelligence was gathered by the Revenue department that the appellant was granting affiliation to various colleges for which they were collecting charges, viz. affiliation fees, inspection fees, no objection fees from such affiliated colleges. The Department opined that the amount so collected by the appellant was not in the negative list Section 66D of the Act nor was there any notification to exempt the same. Hence, the services provided by the Appellant were taxable. The Appellant had also received rental income for renting out auditorium/buildings located in the university campus to banks, Post Offices, Canteen, Photo copy shops etc.

3. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2018 was issued to the appellant for demand of Service tax of Rs. 6,07,01,622/- [60670128 (on affiliation fees, inspection fees and NOC fees) + Rs.31494 (on rental income)] along with applicable interest and alleging penalty under section 75 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal vide Order-in-Original No.36/Commr/ST/BPL-II/2018 dated 19.12.2018, wherein adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Rs.6,07,01,622/- imposed penalty of Rs.6,07,01,622/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal before this Tribunal against the said order-in-original.

5. Learned counsel submitted that the order has been passed in ignorance of the facts of the case and is therefore not tenable under law. The order has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Rajeev Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidhyalay Adhiniyam, 1998 and is therefore not tenable under law. The order is erroneous since it has levied penalty erroneously. Learned counsel further submitted that the issue was no more res integra in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Additional Director General & Ors. vs. M/s. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences²

6. Learned Authorised Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. However, in all fairness, learned Authorised Representative conceded that the issue relating to affiliation fee is covered by the decisions in Principal Additional Director General & Ors. vs. M/s. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (supra)

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Authorised representative for the Department. We note that the issue relating to affiliation fee is no longer res integra and has

2