9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1142 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre deposit - Stay application - Commercial training and coaching - Imposition of interest and penalty - Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 - Held that - Following decision of Ashu Export Promoters (P) Ltd. v. CST, New Delhi 2011 (11) TMI 387 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Wigan and Leigh College (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner 2007 (8) TMI 61 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - Prima facie case is in favour of assessee - Stay granted.
Issues:
Taxability of training services under "commercial training and coaching" category for the period 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2009. Interpretation of "vocational training" under Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. and applicability to the appellant's training services. Analysis: The appellant provided training on export procedures and statutory compliances, which the Revenue sought to tax as "commercial training and coaching." A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued, resulting in a demand of Rs. 2,93,315/- along with interest and penalties. The appellant contended that their training qualified as "vocational training," exempted under Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., citing precedents like Ashu Export Promoters (P) Ltd. v. CST, New Delhi and Wigan and Leigh College (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner. They requested the appeal be admitted without pre-deposit and for a stay on recovery of dues. The Revenue argued that "vocational training" should only cover courses with specific syllabi approved by the Government, such as carpentry, welding, wiring, etc., and that the appellant's training did not meet this criterion. However, the Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, found that the decisions relied upon by the appellant were applicable to the impugned training. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a waiver and stayed the collection of all dues from the impugned order. The stay petition was disposed of accordingly. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that their training services qualified as "vocational training" and were exempted under Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. The decision was based on the precedent set by previous cases and the specific nature of the training provided by the appellant.
|
