Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 305 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - coaching and training services in Foreign Trade and Business Management - Department alleged that the coaching and training services provided by the Appellant did not fall under the category of “Vocational Training” and accordingly, the Appellant cannot be classified as vocational training institute - N/N. 09/2003-ST dt.20.06.2003 - period July, 2003 to September, 2005. HELD THAT:- It is observed that the very issue as to whether any coaching and training given in respect of business management studies would call for Service Tax payment, has been gone into by the Tribunal in the case of Ashu Export Promoters (P) Ltd [2011 (11) TMI 387 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and the Tribunal has held In relation to education and training it gives the meaning “directed at a particular occupation or its skill”. When engagement in occupation or employment becomes outcome of vocational training, pedantic approach as that is made by Revenue is undesirable. On Appeal against this Tribunal’s Order, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi [2014 (3) TMI 863 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that It is evident that the term “vocational training institute” included the commercial training or coaching centers which provide vocational coaching or training meant to “impart skills to enable the trainees to seek employment or to have self employment directly after such training or coaching”. The notion of such training institute having been recognized or accredited to nowhere emerges from such a broad definition. The further Notification of 2010 substitutes the existing explanation to the term “vocational training institute” and narrowing it to those institutes affiliated to National Council for Vocational Training offering courses in designated trade in fact supports the assessee. Had the intention been to exempt only such class or category of institutions, the appropriate authority would have designed such a condition in the original Notification of 2003 and Notification No.10 of 2004 which had been relied upon in this case. The Appeal filed by the Revenue against this Tribunal’s Order was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [2018 (8) TMI 826 - SC ORDER] holding that It was further held that the order of the Tribunal passed in remand direction of the Supreme Court cannot be set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the same was contrary to its earlier order passed on the basis of same set of facts and in the same matter, particularly when such order was under consideration before the Supreme Court and no stay thereagainst had been granted. The confirmed demand for the period July, 2003 to 27.02.2010 is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the Appeal to this extent is allowed - The confirmed demand of Rs.43,01,656/- is being remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to go through the details of the demand and verify the submissions of the Appellant that the services pertain to coaching and training given by them to the students leading to issuance of proper diplomas/ degrees by JNTU. The Appellant is directed to provide all the necessary data that would be sought by the Adjudicating Authority while disposing of the Denovo proceedings. Appeal disposed off.
|