2015 (1) TMI 1366 - HC - Service Tax

Denial of claim of exemption by Notification No. 24/04-ST dated 10.9.04 - Voluntary training and coaching in the field of 1) Business 2) Fashion Technology 3) Advertisement and Graphic Design 4) Media 5) Hospitality and 6) Hospital Administration - the decision in the case of M/s WLC COLLEGE INDIA LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI 2012 (7) TMI 25 - CESTAT NEW DELHI contested - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Ashu Export Promoters (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service tax New Delhi 2011 (11) TMI 387 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that the training provided by the assessee in this case amounted to vocational training within the meaning of the term under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Interpretation of the term "vocational training" for exemption from service tax.
3. Application of previous judgments in determining vocational training.

Condonation of Delay:
In the case, a delay of 763 days in filing the appeal was attributed to the illness of the individual entrusted with the papers. The Court, considering the circumstances, decided to hear the appeal on its merits despite the delay.

Interpretation of "Vocational Training" for Tax Exemption:
The appeal challenged the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision dismissing the Revenue's appeal regarding service tax exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. The issue revolved around whether the services provided by the assessee qualified as "vocational training" exempt from service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The CESTAT held that the training provided by the assessee constituted "vocational training" as per the notification.

Application of Previous Judgments:
The Court referred to the decision in Ashu Export Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, New Delhi and another decision by the Bangalore Bench of CESTAT to determine the meaning of "vocational training." It was noted that the term was open to interpretation by the authorities, and as long as the training aimed to impart skills for employment or self-employment, it qualified as vocational training. The Court upheld the CESTAT's decision based on the precedent set in Ashu Export and CEAC 21/2013, stating that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and thus dismissed it.