2014 (8) TMI 411 - AT - Service Tax

Exemption from service tax - Commercial Training or Coaching by a Vocational Training institute - Notification No. 09/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 and 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2002 - Held that - meaning of vocational training cannot be restricted to training imparted to persons with low levels of education and the policy statements of Government of India would indicate that training given to relatively more educated persons to take up jobs in specific fields also will be covered by the scope of the exemption. The fact that the BA degree issued by the appellant is not recognized by law will negate any claim for going out of the definition at Section 65(27) but that fact by itself cannot result in denial of exemption under the notifications claimed. The training is not in the nature of personality development or of a type suitable for increasing chance of success of a trainee in any competitive test as discussed in circular dated 28-1-2009 but is for imparting skills required in specific jobs. The fact that after such training jobs are not certain cannot make much difference to the issue at hand. - impugned training is also of the nature of the training imparted by Ashu Export Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in the matter of eligibility for the impugned exemption. Therefore we feel that there is a case for waiver of the dues arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Exemption from service tax for training courses provided by the appellants; Interpretation of the term "vocational training institute" as per relevant notifications; Recognition of BA degree in journalism; Eligibility for exemption under specific notifications; Applicability of Circular 107/01/2009-S.T.; Comparison with the case of Ashu Export Promoters (P) Ltd.; Decision on waiver of dues and stay on collection during appeal.

Exemption from Service Tax: The appellants sought exemption from service tax for providing training courses in various fields, citing specific notifications. They argued that the training imparted skills in journalism, TV broadcasting, cinema, etc., making them eligible for the exemption under the said notifications.

Interpretation of "Vocational Training Institute": The Revenue contended that the appellants' training did not qualify as vocational training as the BA degree in journalism awarded by them was not legally recognized. They argued that trainees could not engage in self-employment directly after training, which is a key criterion for vocational training as per Circular 107/01/2009-S.T.

Recognition of BA Degree: The Tribunal noted that the lack of legal recognition for the BA degree did not automatically disqualify the training from being considered vocational. They emphasized that the training aimed to impart skills for specific jobs rather than general personality development, as discussed in the circular.

Comparison with Ashu Export Promoters Case: Referring to the Ashu Export Promoters case, the Tribunal highlighted that vocational training was not limited to low-skilled individuals. They emphasized that training for relatively more educated persons to enter specific fields could also fall within the exemption scope, even if the BA degree was not recognized by law.

Decision on Waiver and Stay: The Tribunal found the nature of the training similar to that in the Ashu Export Promoters case, supporting the appellants' eligibility for the exemption. Consequently, they ordered a waiver of dues and a stay on collection during the appeal process to allow further examination of the issue.