Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser
2019 (2) TMI 93 - AT - Service Tax
Commercial training or coaching services - vocational training services - Benefit of N/N. 09/2003- ST and 24/2004-ST. - whether the appellant who provides training in management are covered by the definition of ‘commercial training or coaching services’ and consequently, whether the courses conducted by them are liable to be taxed as such? - exemption up to September, 2010 allowed or not?
Held that:- This matter had gone up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on remand CESTAT-Bangalore in M/S. THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED FINANCIAL ANALYSTS OF INDIA, HYDERABAD (ICFAI) VERSUS CC&CE, HYDERABAD [2013 (6) TMI 446 - CESTAT BANGALORE] held that three co-appellants in the case viz., ISB (appellant herein), the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India and Badruka Institute of Foreign Trade were commercial training and coaching institutes. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioners only with respect to examining the availability of the benefit of notifications 9/2003-ST & 24/2004-ST.
Benefit of exemption notifications - Held that:- Both these exemption notifications are available for ‘vocational training institutes’ which have been defined as in ‘commercial training or coaching centre’ which provide vocational coaching or training that imparts skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertaken self employment directly after such training or coaching. We cannot think of a more practical job or self employment oriented training or coaching than management courses conducted by the appellant.
The demand for the period July, 2003 to September, 2010 needs to be set aside - As far as the period October, 2010 to September, 2011 is concerned, the demand needs to be upheld as it is not covered by any exemption notification - The appropriate rate of interest has also to be paid - The question of penalty does not apply in this case as it is a demand for normal period under Section 78 - appeal allowed in part.