Rayudu Vision Media Ltd Versus CCT, Secunderabad – GST
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1568 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 234 (Tri. – Hyd.)
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 26-2-2019
Appeal No.ST\/1934\/2010 – A\/30266\/2019
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
\nMs Swetha, Advocate for the Appellant.
\nShri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent\/AR for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: P.V. Subba Rao.
\n1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Original No. 34\/2010-ST dated 07.05.2010.
\n2. The appellant is engaged in imparting training in various courses in the field of animation like 2D Animation, Extreme 3D, Extreme Compositing (SHAKE), Advance Training (FCP) etc. On gathering intelligence about the activities carried out by the appellant they were asked by the department to register themselves with the service tax department in 2006. The appellant contested this direction stating that they are exempted from the <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 'commercial training and coaching service' and an amount of Rs. 2,36,484\/- under 'video tape production agency service' were issued. After following due process the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, vide impugned order, confirmed the demands with interest under Sec.75 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000\/- under Sec.77 and penalty equal to the duty demanded under Sec.78 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed on the following grounds: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n sideration in terms of agreement dated 1-7-2006 to a company in New Zealand and received consideration in foreign exchange. Therefore, the same should be treated as an export of service. Further, the consideration would be covered by exemption notification which applies to small scale service providers because the rest of their services were not chargeable to service tax. If the small scale exemption is considered only an amount of Rs. 7,385\/- is liable to be paid which has also been discharged with interest. In view of the above, they submitted that the production of animation movie undertaken by them is also not liable to service tax as it is an export of service. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ould be treated as cum-tax values and service tax should be calculated accordingly. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rovided in relation to commercial training or coaching by a computer training institute.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Rayudu Vision Media Ltd Versus CCT, Secunderabad – GSTService Tax2019 (2) TMI 1568 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 234 (Tri. – Hyd.)CESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 26-2-2019Appeal No.ST\/1934\/2010 – A\/30266\/2019Service TaxMr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Ms Swetha, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri V.R. … Continue reading “Rayudu Vision Media Ltd Versus CCT, Secunderabad – GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\na. They are providing vocational training or coaching and hence are entitled to the benefit of exemption notification 24\/2004-ST. It is evident from the brochures and prospectus the trainees join the institute to get trained for employment oriented course. Accordingly, the benefit of notification 24\/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 is available to them. They relied on the following case laws:
\n i. Sunwin Technosolutions Pvt Ltd [2007 (7) STR 700]
\n ii. Doon Institute of Information Techno<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. On limitation, the appellant argued that they had not paid service tax because they were and are still of the view that they are not liable to pay the same. They have not suppressed or wilfully misstated or colluded or committed any fraud or contravened any provisions of the act or rules with an intention to evade payme<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Learned departmental representative reiterates the findings of the lower authority.
\n6. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. There is no dispute on the facts of the case that appellant is providing training and coaching in computer animation services which according to the appellant is exempted as per notification 24\/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 as amended from time to time. According to the revenue their coaching is provided in computer hardware and software and therefore, they are excluded from the benefit of this exemption notification. A related issue is the taxability of the video film which they produced and sold to a buyer in New Zealand. The appellant contends that this should be treated as export of service and hence no service tax can be levied on the same. However, they paid service tax on this service after availing the benefit of small scale service provid<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIn explanation to the notification clause (3) has been added as follows:
\n“III) Computer training institute means computer training or coaching centre which provides coaching or training relating to computer software or hardware.”
\n8. The point of dispute is whether the animation coaching provided by the appellant should be treated as computer training in terms of the aforesaid notification or otherwise. We find in the particular facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant's coaching is not computer animation and not any computer software or hardware. When a student passes out the course he will not become either a computer hardware or a software professional but he becomes professional in using the computer software to produce animation and animation films. This is similar to CAD software or TALLY software used by professionals in their work. In our view, the test to decide whether or<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n