The Mumbai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the rejection of refund claim for the period from April 2014 to September 2014, sought against service tax paid on educational course imparted on the ground that it was subsequently recognized by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University (YCMOU) in March 2015.
The bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) has observed that as per the strict interpretation of clause (l)(ii) of section 66D, if services were provided as part of curriculum for obtaining qualification recognized by law, appellant would be entitled to avail the benefit of negative list and if the services that covered both pre and post recognition were offered after receipt of necessary recognition from the Open University, it would have been entitled to receive refund of the tax paid on providing educational services as part of curriculum only when the appellant had not collected any Service Tax from its students for that period.
The Appellant/assessee Company had registered itself for providing various services viz. maintenance /Repair service, Information Technology supply service, business support service, Commercial training and coaching service etc. and it was providing WAVE courses from 2011 in terms of an agreement dated 07.06.2011 (Annexed to Appeal file).
It had started providing KLiC diploma courses from 01.04.2014 and entered into an agreement with YCMOU on 30.03.2015 and continued to impart both WAVE and KLiC courses to its students as well as collected course fees.
Claim of the Appellant is that in view of clause (l)(ii)of the negative list available u/s. 66D of the Finance Act, 1944, that exempts service tax on “Education as part of a curriculum for obtaining qualification” recognized by any law for the time being in force, both the courses were exempted from service tax liability.
Both WAVE and KLiC courses being vocational courses are having same course content as well as Open University having given the declaration by the letter dated 20.06.2016 that the course was effective from September 2013 and certificates/mark sheets of KLiC courses were being issued by YCMOU to successfully passed candidates, course fees collected from students for the period is not subjected to service tax for which service tax paid on the same was sought to be refunded through those refund applications.
Those Applications for refund were rejected on the ground that course curriculum for obtaining qualification was not recognized by the Open University for the relevant period as they entered into an agreement only on 30.03.2015 after which certificates were issued but dues were already collected from the students.
Therefore, the application is hit by the doctrine of unjust adjustment and refund claim was also time barred since hard copy alongwith relevant documents were filed on 08.06.2015 and not on 30.03.2015, contrary to the appellant’s contention that online application for refund was filed by April, 2015 that was well within the limitation period.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal and held that while the entire curriculum was being imparted, appellant had not received any recognition from any university to cover itself under exemption under clause (l)(ii) of the section 66D from the Finance Act.
Read More: Section 129(3) Of GST Act | Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order Passed Beyond Time Limit
Case Details
Case Title: Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd Versus Commissioner Service Tax-I Pune
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 87637 Of 2016
Date: 09/01/2025
Counsel For Appellant: C.A. R. S. Paranjape
Counsel For Respondent: S. K. Yadav
