2017 (12) TMI 901 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Order on Vocational Training Exemption, Appeals Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order due to similar views expressed in previous cases, dismissing the appeals by the Department. The Tribunal emphasized ... Commercial training and coaching centre services - levy of service tax - Held that: - an identical issue has came up before the Tribunal in assessees own case in Hyderabad University Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2017 (11) TMI 349 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], where it was held that the explanation as to what is vocational training institute indicates that the said exemption can be extended to any vocational training institute which imparts skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly after such training or coaching - service tax not leviable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Jurisdictional challenge, Interpretation of exemption notifications, Applicability of service tax on commercial training and coaching servicesJurisdictional Challenge:The department filed appeals against an order dated 27.04.2017, where the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals due to jurisdictional issues, noting that the main appeal was pending in Hyderabad. The Tribunal heard both parties and referred to a similar issue in Hyderabad University's case. The Tribunal observed that students completing educational programs were being employed, supporting the appellant's claim. The decision in Ashu Export Promoters Pvt Ltd. was cited, emphasizing the definition of 'vocational training institute' and the scope of exemption. The Tribunal also referred to Actor Prepares Vs CST Mumbai, emphasizing that the power to grant exemption cannot alter the definition retrospectively. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order due to similar views expressed in previous cases, dismissing the appeals by the Department.Interpretation of Exemption Notifications:The Tribunal analyzed the exemption notifications and definitions related to vocational training institutes. It highlighted that the exemption can be extended to institutes imparting skills for employment or self-employment directly after training. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of 'vocational training institute' did not require affiliation to specific bodies or offering designated trades. It was noted that assumptions made by the adjudicating authority were fallacious and unsustainable. The Tribunal quashed the adjudication order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that retrospective alteration of definitions was impermissible.Applicability of Service Tax on Commercial Training and Coaching Services:The Tribunal reviewed the service tax demands raised and confirmed during denovo adjudication, concluding that denying the benefit of exemption notification for a specific period was incorrect and unsustainable. By following previous orders and considering the facts of the case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, sustaining it along with the reasons provided therein. Consequently, the Appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, and the impugned orders were set aside, allowing the appeals.