2015 (9) TMI 686 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Commercial Training or Coaching Services - Whether the appellant s activity of training, coaching in spoken English language would fall into the category of vocational training or not - Held that - while passing the stay order, the appellants own case for earlier period bench relied upon the orders passed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Apex Institute of English vs. CCE - 2010 (8) TMI 245 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and ICM English Centre vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore - 2012 (6) TMI 456 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , and waiver of pre-deposit was granted. The appellant s case is now weak as this bench in the case of Prof. Ulhas Vasant Bapat (2013 (10) TMI 582 - CESTAT MUMBAI) has taken a view, which is against the assessee. In the absence of any such evidence, we are unable to entertain the plea of financial hardship of the appellant. - appellant should be put to conditions for hearing and disposal of the appeal on merits as we have already held that the issue needs deeper consideration - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Additional grounds of appeal for limitation not taken by the appellant.
2. Whether the appellant's activity of training in spoken English falls under the category of vocational training.
3. Financial hardship plea by the appellant.
4. Pre-deposit amount to be made by the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application to urge additional grounds of appeal for limitation, as directed by the High Court. The Tribunal found that these grounds were mistakenly not included in the appeal but could be raised at the final disposal of the appeal. The application was allowed to be disposed of along with the appeal.

2. The main issue was whether the appellant's English speaking course activity constituted vocational training. The Counsel argued for waiver of pre-deposit, claiming the activity did not fall under "Commercial Training or Coaching Services." However, the Departmental Representative cited a precedent where a similar issue was held against the Assessee. The Tribunal noted the appellant's weak case due to a previous judgment against them and directed a deeper consideration at the final disposal.

3. The appellant pleaded financial hardship but failed to provide evidence such as a balance sheet. The Tribunal, lacking evidence, could not entertain the plea. However, considering the demands raised beyond the limitation period lacked a basis, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a set timeframe.

4. Regarding the pre-deposit, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within eight weeks and report compliance. Upon compliance, the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amount was allowed, and recovery stayed until the appeal's final disposal.

This judgment addressed the procedural aspects of additional grounds of appeal, the classification of the appellant's activity, the financial hardship plea, and the pre-deposit requirement, providing detailed reasoning and directions for each issue.