Decided on June 09,2015

Resonance Eduventures Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Commr. Of C. Ex. And S.T., Jaipur -I Respondents


R.K.SINGH - (1.)THE appeals by M/s. Resonance Eduventures Pvt. Ltd. and Shri R.K. Verma, have been filed along with stay applications.
(2.)Vide impugned orders, the respective impugned service tax demands have been confirmed along with interest and penalties. In addition demand of Rs. 8,24,031/ - was also confirmed on account of disallowing the Cenvat credit to that extent. The appellant has stated that it has already reversed amount of Rs. 8,24,031/ - confirmed on account of disallowing Cenvat credit and that amount stands appropriated in the impugned order itself. Regarding the remaining impugned demands (which alone are being contested in these appeals), the same were confirmed on the ground that the service tax was not paid on the amount of scholarships/fee discounts/fee concessions and these were held to be non -deductible from the assessable value having been given to students as scholarship.
The appellant has contended that it paid service tax on the entire gross amount received for providing commercial training or coaching service and what was called scholarship was nothing but fee concession or discount on fees given to students. It was not as if fee was collected at full rate and any amount in the name of scholarship was given to students. It also contended that there was no willful misstatement or suppression of facts and therefore extended period for raising demand was not invocable.

(3.)THE ld. DR, on the other hand, argued that scholarship is an amount given to the students and therefore the amount of scholarship given in whatever form is not deductible from the full fee required to be charged from the students. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We prima facie find that the appellant has paid service tax on the entire amount received for providing commercial training or coaching service. The so -called scholarship was nothing but a fee discount granted to certain students. In other words, it collected discounted fee from certain students and so in relation to those students the gross amount charged for providing commercial training or coaching service was the discounted fee. Thus, what is called scholarship in the present case is not any amount that was paid to the students from whom fee at full rate was collected; it was just a fee discount. It is well settled that for legal analysis what is relevant is the actual nature of the transaction and not the name given to it (i.e. transaction). In the light of the foregoing we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a strong prima facie case in its favour. Therefore we grant full waiver of pre -deposit and stay recovery of the impugned liability during pendency of the appeal. Misc. application for early hearing of stay application also stands disposed of.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.