2009 (3) TMI 137 - AT - Service Tax

Manpower Recruitment Agency Services Versus Manpower Training or Coaching Services Held that - in terms of the invoices produced, the training imparted relates to computer software. There is mention of UNIX, LINUX & AIX in the invoices. In our understanding, this relates to computer software - when the Commissioner holds that the training imparted by the appellant would come under the category of Consulting Engineer Services, he ought to have gone through the definition of Consulting Engineer as per the Finance Act and arrived at a proper conclusion - The appellant has clearly shown that the services rendered by him would fall under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching Services

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, consisting of T.K. Jayaraman and M.V. Ravindran, heard an appeal against a Review Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. The appellants were accused of providing taxable services without payment, leading to a demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner found that the services provided by the appellants during 1999-2003 did not fall under the category of "Manpower Training or Coaching Services" but under Consulting Engineer Services. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalties, leading to the appellants' grievance. The appellants argued that the Commissioner failed to exercise powers under section 84 and invoked an extended period unjustly. They contended that computer training should not be classified as Consulting Engineer Services. They cited relevant case laws and definitions to support their claim. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not properly examine the facts or legal issues, and the order lacked merit. They concluded that the appellants' services were correctly classified as Commercial Training or Coaching Services, not Consulting Engineer Services. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and provided consequential relief.