2013 (10) TMI 859 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake in final order - Commercial coaching or training services - Exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST - Held that - In the order, no distinction has been made between ISB and IIRM on the one hand and ICFAI on the other hand. In the absence of any discussion and identification of difference between the activities of ISB and IIRM on the one hand and ICFAI on the other hand in the Final Order, at this stage, if we make a distinction in the nature of the institutions, in our opinion, it may amount to review of the order. If we will be going into an area where error/mistake is not apparent from records, it would emerge as a fresh consideration of the nature of the appellants which may not be correct to undertake. Once this point cannot be taken up by us because it may amount to review of the order, what remains is the request for consideration of the alternative claim. Needless to say that while considering the alternative claim, the original authority will be free to go into all the aspects of the matter to determine whether the training given by the institutions is vocational training or not and the institutions can be considered as vocational training institutes or not. Therefore, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to allow the request for rectification of mistake and remand the matter to the original authority as in the cases of ISB and IIRM - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in Final Order, Alternative claim for exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST, Comparison of ICFAI with ISB and IIRM, Consideration of alternative claim, Amendment of paragraphs in the order.

The judgment deals with the rectification of a mistake in the Final Order passed by the Bench concerning the alternative claim for exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST made by the appellants, collectively known as the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India (ICFAI). The mistake arose as the alternative claim made by ICFAI was omitted in the Final Order despite being mentioned in their written submissions. The advocate for the appellants argued that this omission was an error and requested the inclusion of ICFAI's name for consideration of their alternative claim by the adjudicating authorities. On the other hand, the special counsel for Revenue acknowledged the omission but argued that ICFAI should not be compared with ISB and IIRM as ICFAI provides general education courses, unlike the vocational training provided by ISB and IIRM. The counsel contended that ICFAI's courses do not qualify as vocational training, and even if the alternative claim is considered, it should be rejected. The Tribunal noted the lack of distinction made in the order between ICFAI and ISB/IIRM and emphasized that making such a distinction at this stage would amount to a review of the order. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to allow the rectification of the mistake and remand the matter to the original authority for consideration of the alternative claim, similar to ISB and IIRM cases.

Regarding the comparison between ICFAI and ISB/IIRM, the Tribunal highlighted that while ICFAI provides basic education courses, ISB and IIRM offer training suitable for specific vocations. The Tribunal emphasized that the original authority should assess whether the training provided by these institutions qualifies as vocational training and whether they can be considered vocational training institutes. The Tribunal concluded that the request for rectification of mistake should be allowed, and the matter should be remanded to the original authority for further consideration, ensuring each assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal also addressed the need for amending certain paragraphs in the order to reflect the rectification made, ensuring clarity and accuracy in the final decision. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified the disposal of miscellaneous applications related to the case, ensuring consistency and completeness in the final order.