2011 (11) TMI 387 - AT - Service Tax

Assessee provided training in field of Export-Import, Merchandising and Retail Management and claimed exemption under Commercial Training or Coaching Service - by virtue of Notification 9/2003 and 24/2004 - Revenue argued that such training cannot be considered as Vocational - Held That - In view of Wigan & Leigh College (2007 (8) TMI 61 - CESTAT, BANGALORE), service were considered as vocational. Appeal allowed on merits.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of the training activity as "Commercial Training or Coaching."
2. Eligibility for exemption under notifications 09/2003-ST and 24/2004-ST.
3. Definition and scope of "vocational training institute."
4. Nature and content of the courses offered by the Appellants.
5. Applicability of the exemption to the Appellants' training programs.
6. Time-bar and limitation period for the demand of service tax.
7. Allegations of suppression of facts by the Appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Training Activity:
The Revenue classified the training activity of the Appellants, Anshu Export Promoters (P.) Ltd (AEPPL), as "Commercial Training or Coaching," which the Appellants did not contest. The primary dispute revolved around whether the training provided could be considered "vocational training."

2. Eligibility for Exemption:
The Appellants claimed exemption under notification 09/2003-ST (effective up to 09-09-2004) and later notification 24/2004-ST (effective from 10-09-2004). Both notifications exempted taxable services provided by a "vocational training institute," defined as a center providing training that imparts skills enabling employment or self-employment directly after training.

3. Definition and Scope of "Vocational Training Institute":
The Revenue argued that the training provided by AEPPL did not qualify as "vocational training," which they believed should be limited to skills requiring low levels of education. The Appellants countered that their courses, which included Export-Import Management, Retail Management, and Merchandising, imparted practical and procedural skills enabling immediate employment or self-employment, thus falling within the scope of "vocational training."

4. Nature and Content of Courses:
The Appellants detailed their courses, emphasizing practical skills over theoretical knowledge. For instance, the Export-Import Management course covered planning for exports, export marketing, logistics procedures, and quality management, with practical training in documentation and procedures. Similarly, the Retail Management and Merchandising courses provided hands-on training and internships, preparing students for immediate employment in the respective fields.

5. Applicability of the Exemption:
The Appellants argued that their training was vocational, as evidenced by the nature of the courses and the employment outcomes for students. They cited the Eleventh Five Year Plan and the Skill Development Initiative Scheme, which recognized vocational training in various high-growth sectors, including retail and export-import practices. They also referenced the Wigan & Leigh College case, where similar training was deemed vocational.

6. Time-bar and Limitation Period:
The Appellants contended that a substantial portion of the demand was time-barred, as the notice covered the period from 01-07-2003 to September 2008 but was issued only on 31-03-2009. They claimed a bona fide belief, based on legal opinions and previous Tribunal decisions, that they were not liable for service tax.

7. Allegations of Suppression of Facts:
The Revenue alleged suppression of facts, arguing that the Appellants failed to comply with statutory provisions, such as registration, payment of service tax, and filing returns. The Appellants countered that they had disclosed relevant information and relied on exemption notifications.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the training provided by AEPPL was vocational, as it imparted skills enabling immediate employment or self-employment. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's narrow interpretation of "vocational training" and relied on broader definitions and previous decisions, including the Wigan & Leigh College case. Consequently, the Appellants were deemed eligible for the exemption, and the appeal was allowed on merit, making it unnecessary to address the time-bar issue. The allegations of suppression of facts were not upheld, as the Tribunal found no intent to evade tax.