EDUPRO E-SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF CGST-JAIPUR

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
New Delhi

PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. IV

Service Tax Appeal No. 50189 Of 2026

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 620(GS)ST/JPR/2024 dated 02.01.2025 passed
by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and CGST, Jaipur]

Edupro E-Solutions India Private Limited : Appellant
rd
3 Floor, 30, Sudarshanpura Industrial Area
22 Godown Jaipur-302006

Vs


Commissioner of CGST, Jaipur : Respondent
NCR Building, Statue Circule, C-Scheme
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005

APPEARANCE:
Shri Wilson Joy, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Rohit Issar, Authorised Representative of the Department

CORAM :
HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 51430/2026

Date of Hearing:24.08.2026

Date of Decision:07.09.2026





HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA

The present appeal has been filed by M/s Edupro E-Solutions

1
India Private Limited against the Order-in-Appeal No.
620(GS)ST/JPR/2024 dated 02.01.2025 wherein the Commissioner
partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the
demand on two issues.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was
registered under service tax vide no. AACCE7125PSD003. On

1 The appellant

ST/50189/2026



2
scrutiny of third party information received from income tax
department, the department noticed that the appellant had earned
differential income of Rs. 1,21,31,141/- during the Financial Year
2015-16. Not satisfied with the documents submitted by the
appellant, the department issued a Show Cause Notice No.
V(CGST-I)15/22/Dem/EESIPL/2021-22/1578 dated 15.04.2021
proposing demand of service tax of Rs.17,59,015/- under proviso
to Section 73 along with interest and proposed penalties under
Section 77(1)(c) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant
neither submitted any reply to the show cause notice nor attended
the personal hearing. The adjudicating authority confirmed the
demand of service tax of Rs. 17,59,015/- under proviso to Section
73 along with interest under Section 75. Penalty of Rs.10,000/-
was imposed under Section 77(1)(c) and Rs. 17,59,015/- under
Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Thereafter, the appellant filed
an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the
impugned order upholding demand on two (2) issues. Aggrieved,
the present appeal has been filed before the Tribunal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that M/s Globsyn
Skill development Private Limited was an approved training partner
of National Skill Development Corporation. The appellant had been
engaged by Globsyn skills development Private Limited for
rendering skill development courses under the Pradhan Mantri
Kaushal Vikas Yojana Guidelines, 2016-20, which allowed training
partners to render the courses through franchisee mode. The same
was applicable for the year 2015-16. He further stated that the

ST/50189/2026



3
appellant was operating in collaboration with Globsyn Skills
Development Private Limited as was evident from the Certificate of
Participation issued by the National Skill Development Agency to
Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Director of the appellant as part of
Globsyn Skills India Private Ltd, Jaipur. Further, learned counsel
stated that there was no dispute that the certificates for the
courses conducted by the appellant (were issued by NSDC).
Therefore, the services were being provided by the appellant to
NSDC were through Globsyn Skills Development Private Limited.
Hence, they were covered under para 9A (4) of the said
notification. In support, he relied on the decision in M/s SRK
Innovatives School of Information versus Principal
2
Commissioner where in the Tribunal had held when NS DC
schemes/programmes themselves allow both types of partners that
is direct and indirect, and the exemption entry, which is beneficial
entry and related to educational services should be allowed as long
as there is nexus directly or indirectly between the activities of the
tax and NSDC.

3.1 Learned counsel further stated that the Sahitya Sadawat
Samiti is a society that established the Suresh Gyan Vihar
University, Jaipur under an Act of Rajasthan Government. He
contended that the appellant was rendering various distance
learning and vocational training course under the curriculum of
Suresh Gyan Vihar University, by way of which, the students

2 2025-SCC Online CESTAT 1531

ST/50189/2026



4
obtained qualification as under the law. Learned counsel submitted
that the income that was being sought to be taxed was received in
respect to such courses being executed by the appellant for the
students. He drew attention to the communication sent by the
appellant and received from Suresh Gyan Vihar University in
relation to Appellant’s engagement with them. Consequently, he
stated that the services provided was covered under clause (l)(II)
of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994.
3.2 Learned counsel also contended that the extended period was
invoked without jurisdiction. He submitted that no specific act of
fraud, collusion, willful statement, separation, or contravention with
an intent to Evade as required under section 73(1) of the Finance
Act has been mentioned in the impugned order. He contended that
the law has been settled by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal
that mere non-payment or non-submission of the details in itself
does not trigger the extended period, whereas, there has to be
positive act or omission by the taxpayer with the intent to evade
payment of tax. He further submitted that the appellant was
engaged in the business of providing services related to education,
and therefore was under the bona fide impression that its
education related services were exempt. He relied on the following
decisions in support of his contentions.
 Continental Foundation Joint Venture versus
3
Commissioner of Central Excise
 Uniworth Textiles Limited versus Commissioner of
4
Central Excise

3 2007 SCC Online SC 1066

ST/50189/2026



5
 Anand Nishikawa versus Commissioner of Central
5
Excise
6
 Collector of Central Excise versus H.M.M. Limited
4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department
submitted that Para 9A of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, inserted
through Notification No. 13/2013-ST dated 10.09.2013, grants
exemption from Service Tax only to skill development and
vocational training services provided by the National Skill
Development Corporation (NSDC), approved Sector Skill Councils,
Assessment Agencies, and Training Partners under programmes
implemented by the NSDC, including the National Skill Certification
and Monetary Reward Scheme. In the present case, the appellant
had rendered services to Globsyn Skill Development and not
directly to the NSDC or under an eligible NSDC-implemented
programme. Therefore, the appellant had failed to satisfy the
conditions prescribed under the notification. Thus, the appellant
was liable to pay Service Tax.
4.1 Learned authorized representative further submitted that the
exemption available under Section 66D(I)(ii) of the Finance Act,
1994 was restricted to educational services provided as part of a
curriculum leading to a qualification recognized by law. Although
the appellant had conducted degree courses of Gyan Vihar
University, it was neither a University nor an institution imparting
education in the manner contemplated under the statutory
provision. Accordingly, the appellant was not entitled to claim

4 2013 SCC Online SC 76
5 2005 (7) SCC 749
6 1995 SCC Online SC 82

ST/50189/2026



6
exemption under the Negative List, making it liable to pay Service
Tax. The taxable services rendered and the corresponding non-
payment of Service Tax came to the Department's notice only upon
receipt of third-party information. This amounted to suppression of
material facts with an intention to evade payment of tax. The
appellant had also contravened the provisions of Section 68 of the
Finance Act, 1994 by failing to deposit the Service Tax within the
prescribed time.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned Authorized Representative for the Department and have
perused the case records.
6. Regarding income of Rs. 3,14,000/- received from M/s
Globsyn Skill Development Private Limited, I note that the
impugned order has noted that this income has been received for
conducting PMKVY courses related to Skill Development courses
promoted by Central Government through NSDC department. I find
from this certificate that M/s Globsyn Skills Development Private
Limited was a NSDC funded partner and was authorized to appoint
associate partners to conduct and provide various skill development
programs sponsored by NSDC under PMKVY. It is submitted that
the appellant had conducted various PMKVY programs under the
schemes and initiatives of National Skill Development Corporation
and had earned Rs.3.14.000/-on account of the same. I reproduce
the copy of the said certificate hereinafter:-

"National Skill Development Corporation"
Transforming the skill landscape

ST/50189/2026



7
"Certificate of Partnership

This is to certify that GLOBSYN SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
PRIVATE LIMITED is on Approved Training Partner of National Skill
Development Corporation (NSDC) for the financial year 2015-16"
Sd/- (Dilip Chenoy) MD and CEO date: 1" April, 2015 Place New
Delhi.

CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S GSDL SKILLS PRIVATE LIMITED

To whom so it may concern

This is certify that Edupro E-Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. was an
Authorized partner/Learning center to run BFSI and other program
of NSDC under Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana through GSDL
Skill Private Limited (formerly non as Globsyn Skills Development
Private Limited) for the FY2015-16.
6.1 It is evident from the above certificate that the appellant was
not the directly authorized partner of M/s NSDC under Pradhan
Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana. As per the NSDC certificate M/s
Globsyn Skills Development Pvt. Ltd was the Approved Training
Partner of National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) for the
financial year 2015-16, and not the appellant.
6.2 I find that para 9A (iv) of Notification No. 25/2012, provides
exemption to any services provided in relation to (a) the National
Skill Development programme implemented by the National Skill
Development Corporation; or (b) a vocational skill development
course under the National Skill certification and Monetary Reward

ST/50189/2026



8
Scheme; or (c) any other scheme implemented by the National
Skill Development Corporation. The said para 9A of the exemption
notification 25/2012 is reproduced below:-
“9A. Any services provided by, -
(i) the National Skill Development Corporation set up by
the Government of India:
(ii) a Sector Skill Council approved by the National Skill
Development Corporation;
(iii) an assessment agency approved by the Sector Skill
Council or the National Skill Development Corporation:
(iv) a training partner approved by the National Skill
Development Corporation or the Sector Skill Council: in
relation to (a) the National Skill Development programme
implemented by the National Skill Development
Corporation; or (b) a vocational skill development course
under the National Skill certification and Monetary Reward
Scheme: or (c) any other scheme implemented by the
National Skill Development Corporation.] inserted vide
Notification No. 13/2013-ST, dated 10.9.2013.”

6.3 From the above it is evident that the appellant had been
providing services to M/s Globsyn Skill Development Private Limited
and not to National skill Development Corporation directly.
Therefore, we hold that the appellant is not eligible for exemption
from service tax by virtue of para 9A (iv)(c) of Notification No.
25/2012. The appellant is, therefore, liable to pay service tax Rs.
47,100/-. I draw support from the Supreme Court’s ruling in
7
Commissioner of Customs versus Dilip Kumar and Company ,
which has held that exemption notifications are to be interpreted

7 [AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3607]

ST/50189/2026



9
strictly. Any ambiguity in an exemption notification is to be resolved
against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The relevant para
of the judgment is reproduced hereinafter:-

“41. After thoroughly examining the various precedents some of
which were cited before us and after giving our anxious
consideration, we would be more than justified to conclude and
also compelled to hold that every taxing statute including,
charging, computation and exemption clause (at the threshold
stage) should be interpreted strictly. Further, in case of ambiguity
in a charging provisions, the benefit must necessarily go in favour
of subject/assessee, but the same is not true for an exemption
notification wherein the benefit of ambiguity must be strictly
interpreted in favour of the Revenue/State.
52. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under -
(1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the
burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show
that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption
clause or exemption notification.
(2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which
is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity
cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be
interpreted in favour of the revenue.
(3) The ratio in Sun Export case (supra) is not correct and all
the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case
(supra) stands overruled.”
In the instant case, since the appellant was not the authorized
partner of NSDC, hence, the exemption is not available. The
reliance on Tribunal’s decision on SRK Innovative is misplaced as
in that case, there was a tripartite agreement between NSDC/
Authorized Partner SRK, whereas there is no such agreement in the
instance case.
7. The second issue relates to the income received Rs.
2,31,886/- from Sahitya Sadawart Samiti. The appellant submitted
that this income of Rs. 2,31,886/- was on account of conducting
various distance learning program which are recognized by the

ST/50189/2026



10
Rajasthan Government and run by Gyan Vihar University. As per
clause (1) (ii) of negative list under Section 66 D of the Finance
Act, 1994, education as a part of curriculum for obtaining a
qualification recognized by law for time being in force, is exempt
from service tax. The appellant was conducting degree courses of
Gyan Vihar University. I note that the impugned order has
observed that the exemption from service tax is granted under
clause (I) (ii) of negative list under Section 66 D of the Finance Act,
1994, education as a part of curriculum for obtaining a qualification
recognized by law for time being in force, is exempt from service
tax, if such course is run by the such University not for conducting
degree courses by the appellant. Hence, the appellant is not eligible
for exemption under clause (1)(ii) of negative list under Section 66
D of the Finance Act, 1994 for this degree course and the appellant
is liable to pay service tax of Rs. 34,783/-. The relevant clause of
the section is reproduced hereinafter:-
“Section 66D (l)
services by way of –
(i)pre-school education and education up to higher secondary
school or equivalent;
(ii)education as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification
recognised by any law for the time being in force;
(iii)education as a part of an approved vocational education
course; --------------------“
8. I find from the plain reading of the said clause, that
exemption is available to education for obtaining a qualification,

ST/50189/2026



11
recognized by law. In the instant case, it is admitted fact that the
appellant was providing services of education to Suresh Gyan Vihan
University. I also find that the clause does not require the service
to be provided by a University, as held in the impugned order. I
agree with the learned counsel’s submission that the Commissioner
(Appeals) has read more into the aforesaid provision which are not
present. Hence, I hold that the appellant is eligible for the
exemption available under Section 66D (i) (ii).
9. The learned counsel has submitted that the extended period
cannot be invoked as no specific act of fraud/wilful
misstatement/suppression has been alleged in the show cause
notice and hence extended period cannot be invoked. Learned
Authorized Representative cannot be invoked. Learned Authorized
Representative has submitted that the appellant did not respond to
repeated letters and failed to furnish the relevant records. Hence,
the extended period had been correctly invoked.
10. A perusal of the show cause notice clearly shows that the
show cause notice dated 15.04.2021 had raised demand of Rs.
17,59,015/- for the year 2015-16. The impugned order has upheld
the demand of Rs. 81,843/- only, after having taken note of the
documents submitted by the appellant in respect of the other
income. This clearly establishes that there was no wilful
suppression by the appellant with an intent to evade. I draw
support from the Supreme Court’s judgments.

ST/50189/2026



12
(i) Uniworth Textile Limited versus Commissioner of
8
Central Excise
(ii) Anand Nishikawa versus Commissioner of Central
9
Excise
11. In view of the above, I hold as follows;-
(i) The demand made in respect of services provided to M/s
Globsyn Skill Development Private Limited is upheld for the normal
period, if any.
(ii) The demand in respect of services provided to Sahitya
Sadawat Samiti is set-aside.
(iii) The demand for the extended period is set-aside.
The impugned order stands modified accordingly and the appeal is
allowed to the extent indicated above.


(Order pronounced on 07.09.2026)




(HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
G.Y.


8 2013 SCC Online SC 76
9 2005 (7) SCC 749