2009 (2) TMI 352 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial Training and Coaching centre- Notification No. 9/2003, dated 20.06.2003-The appellants were providing training to candidates in various fields in the name of different institutes. Lower authority held that services rendered by assessee would be covered under category of Commercial Training or Coaching and accordingly demanded service tax along with penalty. In the light of decision of Pasha Educational Training Institute v. CCE,C & ST 2009 -TMI - 32764 - CESTAT, BANGALORE, in which similar issue was decided in favour of assessee holding that training imparted by assessee should be considered to be vocational training and therefore, assessee would be entitled to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 9/2003, dated 20.06.2003 as amended. Held that- the ratio of the above case is applicable to the present case also, thus allow the appeal.

Issues:
1. Requirement of pre-deposit amounts by the appellants.
2. Categorization of services provided by the appellants as 'Commercial Training or Coaching' and exemption eligibility.
3. Interpretation of vocational training and its application to the training provided by the appellants.
4. Justification for the invocation of the extended period by the authorities.
5. Consideration of the syllabus and nature of training provided by the appellants.
6. Recognition and approval of the institute by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.
7. Decision on the appeals and stay applications.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal required the appellants to pre-deposit specific amounts as per the impugned order, detailing the Service Tax, Education Cess, Higher Education Cess, and Penalty amounts for each Stay/Appeal No.

2. The Tribunal examined the services provided by the appellants, which were categorized as 'Commercial Training or Coaching.' The authorities denied exemption under Notification No. 9/2003 and 10/2003, stating that the training did not lead to a recognized degree or diploma. The Commissioner highlighted that the trainees needed to pass an examination conducted by IRDA to work as Insurance Agents.

3. The Tribunal deliberated on the concept of vocational training, emphasizing that it enables trainees to seek employment or self-employment directly after completion. Despite the requirement for IRDA examination, the comprehensive training provided by the appellants was considered vocational, entitling them to exemption benefits under Notification No. 9/2003-ST.

4. The authorities justified the extended period due to the appellants' failure to seek exemption and delayed registration. However, the Tribunal found no grounds for the extended period invocation, especially after recognizing the nature of the training provided by the appellants.

5. The syllabus of the training program offered by the appellants was thoroughly examined, showcasing a wide range of topics related to insurance and agency operations. The Tribunal noted the comprehensive nature of the training, leading to the conclusion that it constituted vocational training.

6. The Institute's approval by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority was a significant factor in determining the legitimacy and quality of the training provided by the appellants.

7. Considering the precedents and the nature of training provided, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellants. The stay applications and appeals were disposed of accordingly, aligning with the earlier decision and recognizing the training as vocational, thus eligible for exemption benefits under the relevant notifications.

← Previous Next →