Rachna Gupta ORDER
Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
1. Present is a common Order qua both the Appeals against Order-in-Original No. 177-180/ST/PKJ/CCE/ADJ/2012 dated 25.10.12 with corrigendum dated 27.11.2012, point of adjudication being similar.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose are that M/s. IILM Institute of Higher Education is being run by a charitable society registered under Societies Registration Act and had been running B.Sc. in Management/MBA, M.Sc. in International Business, PGDM/PGP/MBA and diploma in design courses under the aegis of IILM University, Chhattisgarh. It is Department's case that the said university was disfunctioned vide the Order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 11.02.2005 but still the appellant was found running the above mentioned courses against collecting fees for providing the courses, resultantly, were alleged to have been providing the services of commercial training or coaching as defined under Clause 26 and 27 of Section 65 read with Sub-Clause zzc of Clause 105 of Section 5 of Finance Act, 1994. Since the appellant had not discharged their tax liability qua the aforesaid collected fee during the period March 2004 to March 2008 and also for the period April 2008 to August 2009, four Show Cause Notices were issued as follows:-
Resultantly, the present Appeal.
3. Heard arguments of both the parties. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, while challenging the impugned order, that the appellant is rendering education and teaching by them is excluded from the ambit of being called as commercial training or coaching service as is alleged for one simple reason that they are teaching under the aegis of the recognised universities. The demand of Rs. 11,45,24,226/- has been confirmed in total. It has to be divided in four parts i.e. for giving PG diplomas, i.e. PGDM/PGP/MBA, B.Sc. in Management/BBA, M.Sc. in International Business and Diploma in Design. Three of these courses are denied to be affiliated by the Department and the fourth one i.e. diploma in design is denied to be vocational in nature. It is submitted that these courses are covered by the exclusion clause of the definition of commercial training or coaching centre as given in Section 65(27) of Finance Act, 1994. Adjudicating Authority below is alleged to have ignored this important fact. The confirmation of demand is therefore impressed upon as being not sustainable, Order to this extent is prayed to be set aside. With respect to diploma in design, it is however submitted that in lieu of Notification dated 27.02.2010 vide which the definition of vocational institute got changed, the appellants are liable to pay approximately 3 lakhs qua this cause for the period beyond February, 2010. Hence, the demand with respect to this cause is conceded.
4. While submitting about the Show Cause Notice dated 24.04.2009 it is mentioned that the Department has wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation beyond one year since there was no liability upon the appellant to be discharged for rendering services as defined under Section 65(27) of the Act, no question of intention ........