2007 (8) TMI 61 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial training and coaching centre - Revenue contended that assessee is not entitle for benefit of Notification NO.9/2003 on the ground that it is not registered under AICTE - Held that revenue contention is not valid and allowed benefit of notification

Summary

Issues:
Denial of benefit under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. due to lack of registration with AICTE as a Vocational Institute.

Analysis:
The appeal arose from the denial of benefits under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. to the appellants by the Commissioner, solely because they were not registered with AICTE as a Vocational Institute. The Notification provides benefits for "Vocational Coaching and Training Services" by specific types of institutes. The Senior Counsel argued that the Notification does not require registration as a Vocational Institute, emphasizing that eligibility hinges on trainees acquiring skills for employment or self-employment directly after training. The appellants offer coaching in various fields and are considered to fall under "Vocational Training or Coaching Services." The issue at hand pertains to the correct interpretation of the Notification and the narrow view taken by the Commissioner in denying benefits based on AICTE registration, which was deemed improper and illegal.

The learned JDR supported the Commissioner's decision, leading to a dispute that required resolution. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellants indeed fell under the category of 'Vocational Training or Coaching Services' as per the Notification. The Notification grants exemption from Service Tax for training services provided by vocational training institutes, computer training institutes, or recreational training institutes. It was noted that the Notification does not mandate AICTE registration for eligibility as a 'Vocational Institute.' The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner for reading into the Notification a requirement that was not explicitly stated and for unjustly denying the benefit. Since the appellants' trainees acquired skills for employment or self-employment post-training, they were deemed eligible for the benefits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, providing any necessary consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the incorrect interpretation of the Notification by the Commissioner and upheld the appellants' eligibility for benefits under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. The judgment emphasized that registration with AICTE was not a prerequisite for availing the benefits, focusing instead on the direct employment or self-employment prospects for trainees post-training.