Pre-deposit waiver for service tax demands turns on vocational training exemption and advisory services without industry remuneration.

Prima facie, amounts collected for short-term courses were treated as not taxable under commercial training and coaching service for the period before the 01.05.2011 amendment to the definition, and exemption under Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. was also considered sustainable because the appellant functioned as a vocational training institute. For consulting engineer service, the pleadings indicated that the appellant provided advisory assistance to industries on Government directions, funded by Government grants, without collecting remuneration from the industries. On that basis, and with support from the Board's circular and cited precedent, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the service tax and education cess demands raised under the heads of commercial training and coaching service and consulting engineer service.

Analysis: The appellant made out a prima facie case against the demand under commercial training and coaching service because, prior to the amendment of the definition of commercial training and coaching centre with effect from 01.05.2011, the amounts collected from trainees and students for short-term courses were not taxable on the facts presented. The claim of exemption under Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. dated 10.09.2004, as amended, was also found prima facie sustainable since the appellant functioned as a vocational training institute during the material period. As regards consulting engineer service, the pleadings indicated that the appellant was rendering advisory assistance to industries on Government directions, receiving Government grants, and not collecting remuneration from the industries, with support drawn from the Board's circular and precedent cited before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted in favour of the appellant.

---