2018 (8) TMI 556 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial Training and Coaching Centre - appellant M/s Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India (M/s. ICFAI) offer the certificate and degree in courses offered by them through a branch office located in Baroda - Vocational training or not? - N/N. 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 as amended - Held that - The very same issue has already been decided in the appellant s own case by this Tribunal in M/s Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2017 (11) TMI 349 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , where it was held that There can not be any doubt as to the fact that the students successfully completing the educational programmes of the appellants are being selected for employment by various organisations, whereas the explanation as to what is vocational training institute indicates that the said exemption can be extended to any vocational training institute which imparts skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly after such training or coaching. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of service tax liability for Commercial Training and Coaching Centre services provided by an educational institution offering certificate and degree courses.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, an educational institution offering certificate and degree courses, facing a service tax liability claim by the Revenue for providing services falling under Commercial Training and Coaching Centre as per Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that they are a university recognized by the State Government, providing vocational training courses aimed at enabling students to secure jobs in their respective fields. They contended that their services should be classified as vocational training exempted under Notification No. 24/2004-ST. The appellant cited a previous favorable decision by the CESTAT Hyderabad in a similar case involving the same courses.

The Revenue, represented by the Ld. Superintendent (AR), supported the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the service tax liability.

The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, focused on determining whether the services provided by the appellant qualified as vocational training exempted under the relevant notifications. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including one by the CESTAT Hyderabad, to support its analysis. It highlighted that the students completing the educational programs offered by the appellant were being employed by various organizations, indicating the vocational nature of the training provided. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of "vocational training institute" in the notifications did not require affiliation to specific bodies or offering designated trades, as the essence was imparting skills for employment or self-employment directly after training. Relying on precedents and legal interpretations, the Tribunal concluded that the service tax demands on the appellant for the specified period were incorrect and unsustainable.

In light of the previous favorable decisions and the alignment of the present case with established legal interpretations, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.