9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 990 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service tax - Commercial Training or Coaching service - imparting educational programmes in the areas of finance, banking, insurance, accounting, law, management, information technology, arts, commerce, education, science and technology, at bachelor's and master's level on full time campus and distance learning modes - HELD THAT - The issue in hand has already been considered by this Tribunal at various benches namely, Hyderabad, Delhi and Ahmadabad. Reliance placed in the order of this Tribunal of Ahmadabad Bench in the appellant s own branch of Vadodara, ICFAI BRANCH VADODARA VERSUS CCE ST-VADODARA-I 2018 (8) TMI 556 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD 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. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of services provided by the Appellant under "Commercial Training or Coaching." 2. Recognition and approval by statutory bodies for running educational courses. 3. Non-registration and non-filing of ST-3 returns by the Appellant. 4. Non-payment of service tax and suppression of material facts. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Services: The primary issue was whether the services provided by the Appellant fell under the category of "Commercial Training or Coaching." The Appellant argued that their services should be classified as vocational training, which is exempt from service tax. The Tribunal referred to its previous judgments, including the case of ICFAI Branch-Vadodara vs CCE & ST, where it was established that the educational programmes conducted by the Appellant impart skills enabling students to seek employment or self-employment. This classification aligns with the definition of vocational training institutes eligible for exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST and 24/2004-ST. 2. Recognition and Approval by Statutory Bodies: The Respondent contended that the Appellant did not have recognition from UGC or other statutory bodies like AICTE, NCTE, Bar Council of India, and Distance Education Council, as required under the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulation, 2003. However, the Tribunal found that the courses offered by the Appellant led to employment opportunities, thus meeting the criteria for vocational training, irrespective of the statutory recognition. 3. Non-registration and Non-filing of ST-3 Returns: The Appellant had neither obtained registration nor filed ST-3 returns, which was a violation of Sections 68, 69, and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rules 4, 5, 6, 7, and 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Tribunal acknowledged these procedural lapses but focused on the substantive issue of whether the services were taxable. 4. Non-payment of Service Tax and Suppression of Material Facts: The Appellant was accused of not paying service tax and suppressing material facts regarding the taxable services provided. The Tribunal noted that the demand for service tax, along with interest and penalties, was based on the classification of services. Given that the services were deemed vocational training, the demand was unsustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the services provided by the Appellant were indeed vocational training, which is exempt from service tax. This conclusion was supported by various judgments from different CESTAT benches and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. Judgment: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting consequential relief to the Appellant. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 23.01.2023.
|
