2013 (10) TMI 582 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal denied for coaching service not meeting vocational training criteria under Notification no. 9/2003-ST.

PROF ULHAS VASANT BAPAT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

PROF ULHAS VASANT BAPAT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 1034 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Eligibility for the benefit of Notification no. 9/2003-ST regarding Service Tax exemption for coaching services.2. Interpretation of the term 'vocational training institute' under the notification.3. Whether coaching in spoken English qualifies as vocational training.4. Reliance on certificates and precedents to support the claim.5. Comparison with the National Council for Vocational Training's criteria.6. Application of statutory interpretation principles in determining eligibility for the exemption.Issue 1: Eligibility for the benefit of Notification no. 9/2003-ST:The appellant, a coaching service provider, filed a refund claim citing exemption under Notification no. 9/2003-ST for coaching in spoken English. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and lower appellate authority rejected the claim, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that English is a foreign language and thus qualifies for the exemption. However, the tribunal analyzed the notification's scope, emphasizing the need for training to enable employment directly after completion. The tribunal found the appellant's two-week course insufficient to enhance employability significantly, questioning the credibility of certificates submitted.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'vocational training institute':The tribunal scrutinized the definition of 'vocational training institute' under Notification no. 9/2003-ST, emphasizing the need for training to impart skills enabling immediate employment. It highlighted the specific trades recognized by the National Council for Vocational Training, which excludes language training. The tribunal stressed that statutory interpretation principles require strict adherence to the notification's terms as exceptions, citing a precedent to support a narrow interpretation when in doubt. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the appellant did not meet the criteria for the exemption.Issue 3: Qualification of coaching in spoken English as vocational training:The appellant contended that coaching in spoken English should be considered vocational training, citing certificates and a workshop's relevance to employability. However, the tribunal found the evidence lacking, as certificates were from employed individuals and did not demonstrate direct employability post-training. The tribunal also dismissed reliance on a previous tribunal decision, clarifying its limited precedential value.Issue 4: Reliance on certificates and precedents:The tribunal scrutinized the certificates provided by the appellant, emphasizing their recent issuance and lack of employer validation. It dismissed the reliance on a previous tribunal decision, highlighting its preliminary nature during a stay consideration.Issue 5: Comparison with National Council for Vocational Training criteria:The tribunal compared the appellant's training in spoken English with the National Council for Vocational Training's specified trades, which do not include language training. It highlighted the educational qualifications and training duration set by the Council, underscoring the absence of language training as vocational under the Council's framework.Issue 6: Application of statutory interpretation principles:Applying statutory interpretation principles, the tribunal stressed the need for a strict interpretation of the exemption notification as an exception. Citing a legal precedent, the tribunal emphasized that once eligibility ambiguity is resolved, a wider construction may apply. However, in this case, the tribunal found the appellant ineligible for the exemption based on the notification's specific criteria.In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant did not qualify for the benefit of Notification no. 9/2003-ST due to the nature of the coaching service provided not meeting the criteria for vocational training under the notification.