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>Appeal dismissed as PGDM not vocational training under Notification No. 24/2004-ST. No service tax refund granted.</h1> <h3>M/s SADHANA EDUCATIONAL AND PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> M/s SADHANA EDUCATIONAL AND PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 2014 (33) S.T.R. 575 (Tri. - Mumbai), [2014] 73 VST 53 ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant's course qualifies as vocational training under Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004.2. Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of the service tax paid.Detailed Analysis:1. Qualification as Vocational Training:The appellant, M/s. Sadhana Educational & People Development Services Ltd., claimed exemption from service tax under Notification No. 24/2004-ST, arguing that their Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM) course qualifies as vocational training. The notification exempts taxable services provided by a vocational training institute, defined as a center providing training that imparts skills enabling trainees to seek employment or self-employment directly after training.The appellant argued that their course in Marketing, Finance, Human Resources Management, System Management, and Manufacturing and Operations Management qualifies as vocational training because it prepares students for employment or self-employment. They cited several case laws, including Ashu Export Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. CST and Prof. Ulhas Vs. Bapat Vs. CCE, where vocational training was interpreted broadly to include various professional courses.However, the Tribunal found that the course content of the appellant's PGDM program is broad, academic, and professional rather than vocational. The Tribunal emphasized that vocational training should impart specific skills directly applicable to employment or self-employment, which is not the case with a general MBA program. The Tribunal referenced the case of Prof. Ulhas V. Bapat, where it was held that vocational courses are typically for individuals with lower educational qualifications (8th, 10th, or 12th standard) and are more narrowly focused.2. Entitlement to Service Tax Refund:The appellant sought a refund of Rs. 8,56,522/- for the service tax paid, arguing that their course was exempt from service tax for the period other than 1.7.2004 to 9.9.2004. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this claim, leading to the present appeal.The Tribunal upheld the rejection, concluding that the appellant's course does not qualify as vocational training under the relevant notification. The Tribunal noted that while the course may help in securing employment, it does not fit the definition of vocational training as it is broad and academic rather than skill-specific.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's PGDM course does not qualify as vocational training under Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to the claimed refund of the service tax paid. The decision was pronounced in court on 23/10/2013.
TaxTMI 