2015 (5) TMI 949 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial Training & Coaching - Benefit of Notification 24/04-ST dated 10.09.2004 as amended by Notification 3/10 dated 27.02.2010 - Scope of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - In the absence of any evidence which would indicate that the training imparted by the respondent does not enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self employment, findings of the first appellate authority as factual matrix are uncontested and are to be held as correct. - training imparted by the respondent herein and as recorded by the first appellate authority would definitely get covered under the category of Finance Executive in Non-engineering trades as notified by the Apprentices (Amendment) Act. Accordingly, we hold that in fact the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sadhana Educational & People Dev. Services Ltd. (2013 (12) TMI 735 - CESTAT MUMBAI) supports the case of the respondent. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "Commercial Training & Coaching" service under Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Eligibility for availing the benefit of Notification 24/04-ST dated 10.09.2004 as amended by Notification 3/10 dated 27.02.2010.
3. Whether the training provided enables trainees to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly.
4. Comparison with previous judgments on vocational training and coaching services.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this appeal was to determine whether the training course conducted by the respondent falls under the category of "Commercial Training & Coaching" service as defined in Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed demands against the respondent, stating that the curriculum provided by them falls under this category and is not eligible for the benefit of specific notifications.

2. The first appellate authority, after reviewing the facts and submissions, concluded that the services rendered by the appellant qualified for the benefit of Notification 24/04-ST as amended. This decision was challenged by the Revenue, leading to the appeal.

3. The crucial aspect was whether the training imparted by the respondent enabled trainees to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly after completion. The first appellate authority found that the curriculum provided practical skills enabling students to secure various job roles or work as independent accountants, fulfilling the criteria of a vocational training institute. The authority held that the appellant was entitled to exemption under the vocational training institute category.

4. The Tribunal analyzed previous judgments, including one related to vocational training in management courses. It was observed that the training provided by the respondent aligned with the Finance Executive category in non-engineering trades, as per the Apprentices (Amendment) Act. The Tribunal also distinguished another case involving coaching in English language, emphasizing the factual findings supporting the respondent's case in the present appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, stating that the appeal lacked merit and needed to be rejected. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.