9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the training provided by the appellant institute is for vocational purposes. 2. Whether the degree awarded to candidates renders them self-employed. 3. Whether the activity carried out by the institute qualifies as a commercial service. 4. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax. Analysis: 1. The appellant institute was providing training to candidates for degree examinations, with the Revenue contending that the education provided constituted vocational training. The Revenue argued that the first appellate order allowing the benefit of a specific notification was contrary to law. The Revenue highlighted the substantial fees charged from candidates, asserting that the activity was commercial in nature. The Revenue appealed against the first appellate order. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the training resulted in candidates becoming self-employed, emphasizing that awarding a degree was irrelevant if the training was for vocational purposes. The counsel referenced specific paragraphs in the appellate order to support the argument that the appellant was not liable for service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly concluded that the appellant was not subject to service tax based on the nature of the training provided. 3. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal found it necessary to determine whether degrees were awarded to candidates and whether the training provided was indeed vocational. Given the legal dispute, the Tribunal ordered a status quo ante until the appeal's final disposal, thereby addressing the stay application filed by the Revenue. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the nature of the training provided by the appellant institute, the relevance of awarding degrees, and whether the activities conducted could be classified as commercial services. The Tribunal's decision to maintain the status quo ante reflected the need for further examination of evidence to determine the institute's liability for service tax.
|
