2015 (6) TMI 785 - AT - Service Tax

Pre-licensing training and coaching to the prospective insurance agents - Sponsored by Insurance companies - Held that - In the case of NIS Sparta Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 504 - CESTAT NEW DELHI it was held that the training imparted by the appellants does not fall under the ambit of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994 as the training imparted by the appellant is having the recognition of law and covered under exclusion clause of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, therefore the appellant is not liable to pay service tax at all. We find that issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of NIS Sparta Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 504 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the order for the period July 2003 to March 2007, and subsequent appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order for October 2007 to March 2010.

Analysis:
The case involved the provision of pre-licensing training and coaching to insurance agents by the assessee. The dispute arose regarding the liability to pay service tax on the training provided. The assessee initially believed they were exempt under vocational training but later paid service tax on certain training aspects. The core issue was whether the training provided by the assessee to candidates aspiring to become insurance agents fell under the category of commercial training and coaching services, making them liable for service tax. The training was essential for candidates to obtain a license from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) to become insurance agents. The IRDA prescribed rules for licensing, qualifications, training, and examinations for insurance agents, and the assessee was an approved institution under these regulations.

The Revenue initiated proceedings against the assessee, alleging that they were covered under the definition of Commercial Training and Coaching Institute as per Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, and thus liable to pay service tax. Show Cause Notices were issued for different periods, demanding service tax, interest, and penalties. The adjudication confirmed the demands, leading to appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for service tax but dropped penalties for a specific period. The assessee appealed against the orders demanding service tax and penalties, while the Revenue appealed against the dropped penalties.

The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that training recognized by law and falling outside the definition of commercial training and coaching services was not liable for service tax. Citing the case of NIS Sparta Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the training provided by the assessee was not covered under the definition of commercial training and coaching services. Therefore, the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties was set aside, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed while the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of whether the training provided by the assessee to candidates aspiring to become insurance agents was subject to service tax under commercial training and coaching services. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the training had legal recognition and did not fall under the taxable category, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and allowing the assessee's appeals.