TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT rules vocational training qualifies under Notifications 9/03 and 24/04 despite 12th standard requirement.</h1> <h3>M/s WLC COLLEGE INDIA LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, allowed the appeal filed by the appellants, determining that the training provided qualified as vocational ... Denial of claim of exemption by Notification No. 24/04-ST dated 10.9.04 - Voluntary training and coaching in the field of 1) Business 2) Fashion Technology 3) Advertisement and Graphic Design 4) Media 5) Hospitality and 6) Hospital Administration. - branches in ten cities across the country - Held that:- As decided in Ashu Export Promoters Pvt Ltd Vs CST New Delhi [2011 (11) TMI 387 (Tri)] the impugned training would qualify to be Vocational training' Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 9/03 and Notification No. 24/04 regarding exemption for vocational training services.2. Determination of whether the training provided by the appellants qualifies as vocational training.3. Assessment of the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant.Analysis:1. The case involves the interpretation of Notification No. 9/03 and Notification No. 24/04, which provided exemptions for taxable services offered by Vocational Training Institutes. The appellant, engaged in providing training in various fields, contested that the training falls under the exemptions mentioned in the notifications. The dispute revolved around whether the training provided by the appellants met the criteria of vocational training as specified in the notifications.2. The Revenue argued that the training offered by the appellants, targeting individuals with at least a 12th standard education level, did not qualify as vocational training. They contended that vocational training should be limited to areas like welding or carpentry, where the required education level is low. A demand for Rs. 3,52,60,500/- as service tax was confirmed against the appellant, along with interest and penalties, based on this argument.3. The appellant's counsel referenced previous Tribunal decisions related to similar cases, highlighting that those decisions had determined that the training provided by the appellants indeed qualified as vocational training. The counsel emphasized that the issue had been extensively examined in previous cases, including detailed analysis of relevant documents and government pronouncements. The appellant sought to benefit from the exemptions provided in the notifications by setting aside the demand raised by the Revenue.4. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the matter had already been thoroughly examined by different benches in previous cases. The Tribunal found that the training offered by the appellants did qualify as vocational training, as established in previous decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellants, providing them with consequential relief from the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in relation to the interpretation of relevant notifications and the determination of whether the appellant's training services qualified as vocational training for the purpose of tax exemptions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
