Order Date: 14 September 2022 

Facts-

• The Appellant Indian Institute of Managementis a premier education institute. The appellant conducted a common admission test for admission of applicants to the Indian Institute of Management. A number of non-IIM institutes use CAT scores to evaluate the applicants applying for admission to such non-IIM institutes. The scores of the CAT exam are made available to non-IIM Institutes on payment of prescribed fee as per Memorandum of Understanding between appellant and such Non-IIM Institutes, for use of the said scores.
• The Non-IIM Institutions pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000- and a processing fee of Rs. 200/- per candidate for availing access to the CAT scores. The institutes which have not used CAT 2009 official score pay one time membership fee of Rs. 50,000/-, an annual fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a processing fee of Rs. 200/- per candidate for availing access to CAT-2009 course. The IIM Ahmedabad which conducted the said CAT, Admission Test in the year 2009 received an amount of Rs. 5,52,37,000/- during 2008-09 and 2009-10 as fee towards providing access to CAT’s scores.
•  The Central Excise Revenue Audit (CERA) in their Statement of Fact dated 15.10.2010 observed that the said service provided by IIM amounted to provision of “Mailing list compilation and Mailing service”. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking to demand service tax on the aforesaid activity undertaken by the appellant.
• The appellant filed this appeal against the demand of service tax under the head of “Mailing list compilation and Mailing services”.

Issue-

• Whether the demand of service tax under the head of “Mailing list compilation and Mailing services” is sustainable?

Order-

• The Tribunal observed that the appellants are not compiling any list or providing list of names addresses etc. The appellants are merely providing scores in respect of names of candidates supplied by the clients (Non-IIM Institutes). Moreover, the activity of ‘Mailing list compilation and mailing’ is done for or on behalf of the client. In this case the appellants are only dealing with the clients and not with any third party.
• There are no reason to hold that the activity done by the appellant is covered under the head of ‘Mailing list compilation and Mailing service’.
• Hence the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.