Page 186 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

408 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 408 (Tri. - Bang.)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J) and P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)
MANIPAL UNIVERSAL LEARNING PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF C. EX., MANGALORE
Final Order No. 21295/2019, dated 20-12-2019 in Appeal No. ST/218/2009
VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) fee - One-time fee for supply of
goods and actual usage charges charged for supply of VSAT equipment - Ap-
pellant not giving franchise by providing the VSAT at the learning Centres -
Appellants neither giving permission to use their name by providing the
VSAT facility nor receiving any royalty towards the alleged franchise, there-
fore, agreement not classifiable as franchise agreement - Activity at best could
come under the activity of “supply of tangible goods” vide Section
65(105)(zzzzj) of Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 16-5-2008; hence, for the period in
question, VSAT management fee charged towards supply of goods cannot be
subjected to Service Tax during the period in question - However, duty not
demanded under this category - Further, VSAT usage fee being in the nature
of telecommunication costs apportioned and recovered as reimbursement,
such charges are not liable to Service Tax. [paras 13, 15]
Demand - Limitation - Appellants registered with the Department and
in continuous correspondence with department and various visits of Audit
teams taken place - Moreover, Department issued a show cause notice earlier
demanding Service Tax in respect of (i) Affiliation fee; (ii) Inspection Fee;
(iii) Licence Fee, under the category of “franchise service” - Second Show
Cause Notice being based on same set of contracts and other documents, De-
partment not within their right to issue a second show cause notice alleging
suppression - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 11]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Centre For Development of Advance Computing v. Commissioner
— 2016 (41) S.T.R. 208 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................................................................. [Para 6]
Commissioner v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. — 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 364 (Tribunal)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 6]
Commissioner v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. — 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 347 (Bom.) — Referred ..... [Para 6]
Commissioner v. Rivaa Textiles Inds. Ltd. — 2015 (322) E.L.T. 90 (Guj.) — Referred ..................... [Para 4]
Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. Commissioner — 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 5]
Delhi International Airport P. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2017 (50) S.T.R. 275 (Del.) — Referred ... [Para 6]
ECE Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2004 (164) E.L.T. 236 (S.C.) — Referred ........................... [Para 4]
Franch Express Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner —
2008 (12) S.T.R. 370 (Tribunal) — Referred ................................................................................... [Para 6]
Hyderabad Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2004 (166) E.L.T. 151 (S.C.) — Referred ........ [Para 4]
IMA Mental Arithmetic Academy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2019 (22) G.S.T.L. 234 (Tribunal) — Relied on ................................................................ [Paras 7, 14]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  186