<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (8) TMI 61 -  CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2307</link>
    <description>The exemption for commercial training or coaching services under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. applied to a vocational training institute because the notification defined such an institute by the nature of training provided, namely coaching that equips trainees for employment or self-employment. The absence of AICTE registration was not a prescribed condition, so exemption could not be denied by adding a requirement not found in the notification. As the institute&#039;s courses were found to impart job-oriented skills and that factual position was undisputed, the service qualified for exemption and the denial on the ground of lack of AICTE registration was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 61 -  CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2307</link>
      <description>The exemption for commercial training or coaching services under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. applied to a vocational training institute because the notification defined such an institute by the nature of training provided, namely coaching that equips trainees for employment or self-employment. The absence of AICTE registration was not a prescribed condition, so exemption could not be denied by adding a requirement not found in the notification. As the institute&#039;s courses were found to impart job-oriented skills and that factual position was undisputed, the service qualified for exemption and the denial on the ground of lack of AICTE registration was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2307</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>