TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The amount already paid by the appellant was appropriated. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Learned Counsel Shri M. Saravanan appeared and argued the matter. The appellant is a State Transport Corporation carrying out transport service for the public and they are not a Commercial Training or Coaching Centre providing any Commercial Training or Coaching to anyone. The training is given to the newly recruited drivers and conductors and the cost incurred for giving the training is recovered from them, which is nothing but reimbursement of expenses only. It is not the case of the department that the appellant has given training to third party i.e., persons other than their own employees. Since they are not into business of giving training to any third person they don't fall under the definition of "Commercial Training or Coaching Centre" defined in Section 65(27) of the Act and hence, it will not attract any service. 2.1 The adjudicating authority himself in his order admitted the fact that the amounts were collected from drivers and conductors only. Therefore, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mployment or undertake self-employment, after such training or coaching. The persons who undergo training only can continue to be in employment. Further with this training they can seek employment or undertake self-employment, directly after such training or coaching. 2.7 Prior to 27-2-2010, any institution providing training or coaching that impart skills to the trainee and that enable him to seek employment or undertake self-employment, after training or coaching is a Vocation Training Institute and the same is exempted from payment of Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. Hence, in this case also, they are Vocational Training Institute and exempted from payment of Service Tax up to 26-2-2010. 3. Since appellants are not a commercial concern, they were of the bona fide belief and understanding that the service tax is not payable by them, as it will apply only to commercial concern and not to Government undertakings and their understanding has been substantiated in the case laws. The retrospective amendment supports their bona fide belief. Further, prior to the insertion of the explanation the definition of "taxable service" in the Finance Act, 2010 was amended b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for clarifying the meaning of the word "commercial" used in the definition of 'Commercial Training or Coaching Services". The amendment which is brought forth introducing the Explanation is applicable retrospectively from July, 2003 onwards. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that they were under the bona fide belief that being a State Government undertaking, they would not fall under the category of "Commercial Training or Coaching Service" is misplaced and not acceptable. With regard to the invocation of extended period, she submitted that when the definition as well as circulars were very clear, the appellants cannot take shelter by contending that they were under a bona fide belief that their activity is not subject to levy of service tax. The show cause notice issued invoking the extended period is legal and proper. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The issue is with regard to the demand of service tax under the category of "Commercial Training or Coaching Service". For better appreciation, the relevant definitions are reproduced hereinbelow :- (i) The term "Commercial Training or Coaching" is defined in section 65(26) of the Finance Act, 1994 as under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-2003, the activity of training imparted by the appellant would fail under the category of 'Commercial Training or Coaching Services". 11.1 The second contention taken by the Learned Counsel is that the appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking their activity had no profit motive and, therefore, would not fall within the meaning of the word "commercial". The amendment brought forth on 26-2-2010, has introduced an Explanation wherein, it is stated that "commercial" means "any training or coaching that is provided for consideration irrespective of the presence or absence of any profit motive." The said Explanation is applicable retrospectively, which means, it is applicable from 1-7-2003 onwards. Thus, the second argument of the Learned Counsel also fails 11.2 The third argument put forward by the Learned Counsel is that the training imparted by them is in the nature of vocational training and, therefore, they are eligible for the exemption as per Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004. Vocational training means "the training that imparts skills to the candidates in order to enable the candidate to seek employment or undertake self- employment, directly after such traini....