TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities; identical to regular colleges and parallel colleges also. The students are being prepared for courses and are imparted training to appear for competitive examinations as well. The decision of this Court in Malappuram District Parallel College Association [2005 (8) TMI 336 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA] would squarely apply to the respondent-firm, since they are imparting coaching for courses leading to recognised certificates, diplomas and degrees issued by lawfully constituted academic bodies. Hence when such institutes also carry on training schedules to prepare students for competitive exams, categorised as commercial coaching ; as per the clarification issued by the CBCE, they stand exempted. Franchisee services provided by the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he firm has been imparting the following training to students to appear for various examinations: a) Engineering/Medical Entrance Examination b) B.Com/M.Com of various Universities c) Off-campus study centre of IGNOU, Manipal, Bharathiar Universities for MBA, MCA, etc. d) Certified Computer courses like CCNA, MCPC e) BSC-IT, BCA, MCA, MIT, BIT of Sikkim/Manipal Universities. 3. That apart, training was also provided by the assessee-firm, from their various branches across the State, to candidates for appearing in L.D.Clerk examinations. The assessee had franchisees at Kasaragod, Attingal and Payyannur. The accounting was centralised at the Head Office. The franchisee agreements were entered into by their ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation in this appeal: Whether the Tribunal was right in extending the benefit of Para 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the CBEC Circular No.59/8/2003 dated 20.06.2003 to the respondent and thereby holding that the respondent cannot be treated as commercial training or coaching centre and the services rendered by them cannot be taxed under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching Service ? 7. We heard the Standing Counsel for CBEC Sri.P.R.Sreejith and Smt. Nilofar O.Nizam, Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. 8. It is urged by the learned Senior Standing Counsel that the respondent-firm was a commercial coaching or training centre and would therefore fall under the category of commercial training or coaching service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titution. 10. Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 2003 reads thus: ( 27) Commercial training or coaching centre means any institute or establishment providing commercial training or coaching for imparting skill or knowledge or lesson on any subject or field other than the sports, with or without issuance of a certificate and includes coaching or tutorial classes but does not include pre-school coaching and training centre or any institute or establishment which issues any certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognised by law for the time being in force. 11. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Revenue is that the respondent is not a regular college which grants certificate, diploma or deg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , are outside the purview of commercial training or coaching institute . Thus, even if such institutes or establishments provide training for competitive examinations etc., such services rendered would be outside the scope of service tax. 13. The assessee herein is also imparting education to obtain recognised degrees/diplomas from Universities and that apart the students are also being provided training to appear for competitive examinations, entrance tests, etc. It is not necessary that the respondent-firm should issue a certificate, diploma or degree. The students given coaching by the appellant are issued with certificates, diplomas and degrees, as issued by the Universities; identical to regular colleges and parallel colleges al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BCE, could have been altered after the judgment of this Court; which was not done. In interpreting the provision we cannot ignore the clarification, which is binding on the department and its officers. The clarification has to be read along with the decision of this Court. 15. Franchisee services provided by the respondent has been excluded by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Tribunal from exemption. It is only the service tax pertaining to commercial training or coaching services that the exemption is extended. We find no infirmity, whatsoever, in the impugned order of the Tribunal and the appeal is only to be dismissed answering the question framed in favour of the respondent and against the department-appellant. No costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
