9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mparting the vocational training and held that the appellant was entitled for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20th June 2003. Training imparted by the appellants does not fall under the ambit of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994 as the training imparted by the appellant is having the recognition of law and covered under exclusion clause of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, therefore the appellant is not liable to pay service tax at all. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/1806/2011-CU(DB) - F. Order No. 54909/2014 - Dated:- 18-12-2014 - Mr. Ashok Jindal and Mr. R.K. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Ajay Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Govind Dixit, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per Ashok Jindal : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where service tax liability has been confirmed against him under the category of Commercial Training and Coaching Services along with interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is providing training to candidates who intent to become Insurance Agent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiated against the appellant and for the period 1st July 2003 to 9th September 2004, a Show Cause Notice dated 1.7.2008 was issued to the appellant for demand of service tax along with interest and proposal for various penalties under Section 76, 77 78 were also made. Adjudication took place, the proposals made in the Show Cause Notice were confirmed by converting into the demand of service tax along with interest and imposing various penalties on the appellant under the Finance Act. Aggrieved for the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Shri Ajay Agarwal, ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant and submits that the appellant although a Commercial, Training and Coaching Institute is not covered for levy of service tax under Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994. To support this contention, he drew our attention to Section 65(27) of the Act and says that appellant is imparting training for which a certificate is issued which is recognised by law. Therefore, they are under the exclusion clause of Section 65(27) of the Act. In these set of facts, he prays that impugned order is required to be set aside. He further submits that the appellant is entitled for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commercial Coaching and Training Institute, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay service tax. He further submits that the appellants are issuing only a certificate of completion of training and not conducting any exam and issuance of certificate of Training is not recognised by law. In these circumstances, he cannot take the shelter of the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering (supra). He further submits that the exam conducted by Insurance Institute of India, Mumbai has no concern with the training imparted by the appellant as that has not prescribed any syllabus for conducting the training. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of St. Antonys Educational Charitable Society Vs. Union of India - 2006 (1) STR 137 (Ker.). 6. He further submits that as the appellant was well aware of their activities liable to tax and suppressed deliberately their activity from the department therefore, extended period of limitation is rightly invoked. 7. Heard the parties. 8. In this case the issue before us is that whether the activity undertaken by the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall make an application to a designated person- (i) in Form IRDA-Agents-VA, if the applicant is an individual; (ii) in Form IRDA-Agents-VS, if the applicant is a firm or a company; provided that the applicant, who desires to be a composite insurance agent shall make two separate applications. (b) The fees payable by the applicant to the Authority shall be as specified in Regulation 7 (2) The designated person may, on receipt of the application along with the evidence of payment of fees to the Authority, and on being satisfied that the applicant - (i) possesses the qualifications as specified under Regulation 4; (ii) possesses the practical training as specified under Regulation 5; (iii) has passed the examination as specified under Regulation 6 5 (1) The applicant shall have completed from an approved institution, at least, fifty hours practical training in life or general insurance business, as the case may be, which may be spread over one to two weeks, where such applicant is seeking licence for the first time to act as insurance agent. (3) An applicant, who has been granted a licence after the commencement of these regulations, before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee or any other educational qualification recognized by law for the time being in force, are however excluded from the sphere of the defined entity. 13. To answer this reference, this Tribunal has restricted to examine the meaning of Commercial, Training Coaching Centre and restricted not to examine the exclusion clause of Section 65(27) of the Act. As this Tribunal has not examined the said issue, therefore, answer to such reference is of no help to the Revenue. 14. We further find that a similar issue came before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering (supra) wherein the facts were like as under: 3. It is inter alia the case of the petitioner : (ii) that the petitioner issues a certificate approved by the DGCA to candidates who successfully complete the approved training curriculum and successfully pass the examinations as per the approved course syllabus; (iii) that the DGCA fully controls such training institutes by prescribing syllabus, number of seats per session, manner in which the exam is to be conducted as well as the manner in which the certificate is to be issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate given by such institute. 23 The expression recognized by law is a very wide one. The legislature has not used the expression conferred by law or conferred by statute . Thus even if the certificate/degree/diploma/qualification is not the product of a statute but has approval of some kind in law , would be exempt. 24. Recognize is defined, in the Black s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition as confirmation of an act done by another person as authorized, formally acknowledging the existence; and, in Concise Oxford Dictionary as acknowledging the existence, validity or legality of. 26. There can be no doubt that such recognition through the Rules framed as aforesaid and through issuance of CAR, is a recognition by law, which is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th Edition as the aggregate of legislation, judicial precedents and accepted legal principles and the set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of legal systems. The Rules and the CAR aforesaid dealing with aircrafts, there can be no doubt, are law. The Supreme Court in Narsingh Pratap Singh Deo v. State of Orissa - AIR 1964 SC 1793 held that a law generally is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining and held that the appellant was entitled for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20th June 2003. The reliance by the ld. AR in the case of St. Antony s Educational Charitable Society is also of no help as in the case in hand, we have already observed that the training imparted by the appellant is having recognisation of law. 16. As discussed above, to conclude, we hold that the facts of this case are similar to the facts of the case of Pasha Educational Training Inst. (supra) and Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering (supra) wherein it was held that the training imparted by the appellants were not covered under the definition of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994. 17. Therefore, we hold that in this case also the training imparted by the appellants does not fall under the ambit of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994 as the training imparted by the appellant is having the recognition of law and covered under exclusion clause of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, therefore the appellant is not liable to pay service tax at all. 18. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
