TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for the period October, 2005 to December, 2011 for an amount of Rs.1,97,75,871/-. The Department alleged that the coaching and training services provided by the Appellant did not fall under the category of "Vocational Training" and accordingly, the Appellant cannot be classified as vocational training institute to qualify for the exemption granted under Notification No.09/2003-ST dt.20.06.2003. After due process, the demands were confirmed along with interest and penalties. Being aggrieved by the impugned OIOs, the Appellant is before the Tribunal in these two Appeals. The learned Counsel submits that during the period July, 2003 to September, 2005, their services were exempt way of Notification No. 09/2003- ST wherein the definition of vocational training institute was given as under: "Vocational training institute means a commercial training or coaching centre which provides vocational training or coaching that impart skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment, directly after such training or coaching;" 2. He submits that vide Notification No. 03/2010-ST dt.27.02.2010, the definition of vocational training institute was amended as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entres providing certain services were given exemption from payment of Service Tax when such coaching and training was imparted on account of: (i) Any pre-school coaching and training; (ii) Any coaching or training leading to grant of certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification which is recognised by any law for the time being in force; 6. He says that when the coaching and training imparted by the Appellant's unit leads to issue of any degree or diploma, which is recognised by any law, the Service Tax is not required to be paid. He submits that out of confirmed demand of Rs.43,01,656/-, the Service Tax to the extent of Rs.18,18,608/- is regarding the services provided by the Appellant to the students by granting them diplomas from JNTU. Therefore, the same should be treated as covered under Notification No.33/2011. He prays that even post 28.02.2010, the Appeal is liable to be allowed for the entire confirmed demand of Rs.43,01,656/- by citing certain Circulars. 7. Learned AR reiterates the findings of the Lower Authority and submits that he has correctly come to the conclusion that Appellant is not running any vocational institute. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mphasis supplied] 10. On Appeal against this Tribunal's Order, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under: "10. The Tribunal noticing the specific term of what is meant by vocational training institute, i.e., computer training institute or recreation training institute or a coaching centre, was of the opinion that so long as the broad nature of the activity is to impart skills to enable the beneficiaries to seek employment or undertake self employment directly, the conditions were satisfied. In M/s Sadhna Educational and People Development Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2013 (12) TMI 735, the findings of the Tribunal - whose order is an elaborate one - mostly containing the extract of the entire syllabus and brochure of the institution is as follows: - "8. Learned Advocate for the appellant has quoted a catena of case laws listed earlier. We have gone through each of the cases. We find the facts of the present case are distinguishable as none of these cases cover a general M.B.A. program with content of the program as wide and academic as in the present case. We do not consider it necessary to discuss each of these cases here." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u Export Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is covering the issue in favour of the appellant. We reproduce the said ratio : "11. It is evident that the term "vocational training institute" included the commercial training or coaching centres which provide vocational coaching or training meant to "impart skills to enable the trainees to seek employment or to have self employment directly after such training or coaching". The notion of such training institute having been recognized or accredited to nowhere emerges from such a broad definition. The further Notification of 2010 substitutes the existing explanation to the term "vocational training institute"and narrowing it to those institutes affiliated to National Council for Vocational Training offering courses in designated trade in fact supports the assessee. Had the intention been to exempt only such class or category of institutions, the appropriate authority would have designed such a condition in the original Notification of 2003 and Notification No. 10 of 2004 which had been relied upon in this case." We also find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as reported at 2015 (38) S.T.R. J207. 10. In view of the foregoing, in the facts and circumstances of this case, Service Tax demands raised and confirmed in the de novo adjudication by denying the benefit of exemption notification for the period 1-7-2003 to 31- 3-2005 is incorrect and unsustainable." [Emphasis supplied] 12. The Appeal filed by the Revenue against this Tribunal's Order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding as under: " The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph on 10-8-2018 after condoning the delay dismissed the Civil Appeal Diary No. 20775 of 2018 with C.A. D. No. 23120 of 2018 filed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad-II against the CESTAT Final Order Nos. A/31654- 31657/2017, dated 24-10-2017 as reported in 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 444 (Tri.- Hyd.) (Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India v. Commissioner). While dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court passed the following order: "1. Delay condoned. 2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant(s) and ....