TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 15/COMMR/ST- I/KOL/2016-17 dated 08.06.2016 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata, wherein the demand of Rs.1,20,70,867/- and recovery of CENVAT Credit of Rs.11,78,426/-, has been confirmed, for the period from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Service Tax Appeal No. 76558 of 2016 has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 16/COMMR/ST- I/KOL/2016-17 dated 09.06.2016 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata, wherein the demand of Rs.4,32,40,288/- and recovery of CENVAT Credit of Rs.26,06,995/-, has been confirmed, for the period from 2011-12 to 2013-14. 1.3. Service Tax Appeal No. 75155 of 2017 has been filed consequent to upholding the rejection of their VCES-1 application by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-I), Kolkata, vide Order-in- Appeal No. 251/ST-I/KOL/2016 dated 24.10.2016. The period involved is from April 2011 to December, 2012, which is overlapping with the periods involved in the appeals mentioned above. 2. All these appeals are having common issues and therefore, are taken up together for decision by way of a common order. 3. The facts of the case ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on the following judgements: - * Lord Krishna Real Infra P. Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 1563 - CESTAT, Allahabad] * South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. [(2024) 17 Centax 245 (Tri. - Del.)] * Kush Constructions [2019 (5) TMI 1248 - CESTAT, Allahabd] 5.1. The appellant also submits that in these cases, the Department has failed to discharge its burden of proof, to establish their taxability; as no evidence has been adduced by the Department in support of the alleged taxability of the services rendered by the appellant, the demand thereof cannot sustain. In support of this contention, the appellant has relied on the following decisions: - * Lord Krishna Real Infra P. Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 1563 - CESTAT, Allahabad] * Welcome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (7) TMI 409 -CESTAT, New Delhi] 5.2. It is the appellant's further contention that services rendered by a Vocational Training Institute is exempt under Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. dated 10.09.2004, for the periods 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10. It is submitted in this regard that they impart vocational training skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment, directly afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with universities recognized by UGC. In this regard, the appellant has enclosed the NSDC certificates and proof of affiliation with universities. It is the appellant's plea that the Department has sought to deny the benefit of exemption merely on the basis that address mentioned in the certificates were not there in the registration certificate i.e., S.T.-2, in terms of Rule 4(2) of the Service Tax Rules. However, the appellant points out that they are having a centralized registration and such centralized registration covers all their offices. On this score, the appellant has produced a Chartered Accountant's Certificate to the effect that centralized accounting procedure was being maintained and an Affidavit from the Director to the effect that all operations from other parts are integral to the appellant-company. 5.3. In all these appeals, the appellant has submitted that the Show Cause Notice was issued on the basis of difference between S.T.-3 and books of accounts whereas the order travelled beyond the scope of the said notices without bringing on record any contrary proof of taxability or ground for denial of exemption. Thus, the appellant contends that on this count, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14, which is not within the prescribed time-limit i.e., 30 days of filing of the VCES application in terms of Sl. No. 12 of Circular No. 170/5/2013 ST dated 08.08.2013. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Barnala Builders & Property Consultants [2014 (35) S.T.R. 52 (Comm. Appl.)]; that the notice misinterpreted the term "same issue", which does not mean "same services". Reliance in this regard is placed on Paragraph 2 of Circular No. 174/9/2013-ST dated 25.11.2013 which prescribes that "the concerned Commissioner may ensure that no declaration is rejected on frivolous grounds or by taking a wider interpretation of the conditions enumerated in section 106(2)". In this regard, it is also pointed out by the appellant that Issue No. 5 in circular No. 170/5/2013 ST dated 08.08.2013 clarifies that issuance of a Show Cause Notice or order of determination for any period prior to October 2007 on an issue would not make a person ineligible to make a declaration under the said scheme on the same issue for the period covered by the scheme; accordingly, the declaration made under VCES is proper. Therefore, the appellant submits that the rejection of their VCES declaration is unte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll centre' operations, which equips the students with necessary skills to secure employment in the call centre industry. Thus, we observe that such services rendered by the appellant are covered under the ambit of Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. dated 10.09.2004. 9.1.1. Thereafter, we observe that the above definition contained in Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. was amended vide Notification No. 03/2010-S.T. dated 27.02.2010, as under: - "(i) vocational training institute" means an Industrial Training Institute or an Industrial Training Centre affiliated to the National Council for Vocational Training, offering courses in designated trades as notified under the Apprentices Act, 1961(52 of 1961). 9.1.2. A perusal of the above Notifications clearly indicates that the services rendered by the appellant fall squarely within the ambit of the above definition provided for "vocational training institute" in Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. dated 10.09.2004, as effective till 01.07.2012. 9.2. In this regard, the appellant has also referred to Notification No. 23/2010-S.T. dated 29.04.2010 (effective till 01.07.2012), by way of which exemption was available in relation to Modular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23/2010-S.T. dated 29.04.2010, till 01.07.2012. Thus, we hold that the demand of service tax confirmed for the period prior to 01.07.2012, by denying the exemptions provided under the above said notifications is not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. After 01.07.2012 : 11. For the period after 01.07.2012, the appellant primarily contends that the said services are exempt as per sub-clause (iii) of clause (l) of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 (Negative List), which reads as under : - " (l) services by way of - (i) pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent: (ii) education as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognised by any law for the time being in force; (iii) education as a part of an approved vocational education course ;' " ( Emphasis supplied ) 11.1. Section 65B of the Act, defines "approved vocational education course" to mean: - " (11) " approved vocational education course " means, - (i) a course run by an industrial training institute or an industrial training centre affiliated to the National Council for Vocational Training ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r ST-2 and thus, Rule 4(2) of the Service Tax Rules has not been followed. We take note of the appellant's submission in this regard that they have maintained a centralized accounting system in terms of Rule 4(2) of the said Rules and have been paying Service Tax on the basis of the premises located in such centralized accounting. It is seen that the appellant has taken centralized registration at 'Orient Edutech Private Limited' in Kolkata. Thus, we hold that the centralised registration covers all activities undertaken by the appellant and there is no need for a separate registration. 11.5. In this regard, we have also gone through the documents furnished by the appellant viz. copy of ST-2, the Chartered Accountant's certificate in support of maintenance of centralized accounting reproduced above, and the affidavit from its Director, to support that all operations from other parts are integral to the company. 11.6. The appellant have also drawn our attention to Sl. No. 9A of the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. with effect from 10.09.2013, which reads as follows : - " 9A. services provided by, (i) the National Skill Development Corporation set ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnexures to the above certificates wherein invoice-wise details have been indicated, along with the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant for various years. A perusal thereof shows that the same clearly details all the invoices based on which the appellant has availed the CENVAT Credit. On perusal of the detailed list of invoices enclosed along with the Chartered Accountant's certificates, we find that the Chartered Accountant has duly verified all the invoices and given certificates for the corresponding years as to the availment of CENVAT Credit by the appellant, in respect of providing output service. Thus, we do not see any infirmity in the availment of CENVAT Credit by the appellant for the periods under dispute. Hence, we hold that the denial of CENVAT Credit by the authorities below is not sustainable. 14. Regarding the demand of Service Tax of Rs.15,69,720/- under reverse charge mechanism on the Directors' Remuneration, we find that the said amounts have been received under the head of 'salary' on which TDS has been deducted, as per the Income Tax Act. In this regard, we have also perused the Income Tax Returns of the Directors concerned. Having gone through the documen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein, we find that this appeal has been filed against the rejection of their VCES-1 application. In this case, the VCES-1 application has been rejected inter alia on the ground that another Show Cause Notice dated 17.06.2009 has been issued against the appellant on the same issue for the period 2006-07 to 2007-08. However, since the demands confirmed in the said Show Cause Notice have been held as unsustainable in the preceding paragraphs, we find that this appeal filed by the appellant has become infructuous. Hence, the same is disposed of, as infructuous. 19. In the result : (i) The appeals bearing nos. ST/76554/2016, ST/76558/2016 and ST/75133/2017 are allowed, with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (ii) The appeal bearing no. ST/75155/2017 is disposed of, as infructuous. 20. The appeals stand disposed of in the above manner. ( Order pronounced in the open court on 07. 08. 2025 ) ============= Document 1 1Ht CA 734, Doctor Larger CHARTETIDO ACCOUNTANTS Maa : 92000 31851 TO WHOMSOUTH IT MAY CONCERN Drian LngtrÆ°á»ng Center Bassist, BI/DI, ENC. Rail, Harllala Mode, 247cm dichanged dettaly by the company Thin co....