Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Iilm Film & Media School vs Cst, New Delhi on 17 April, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 17.4.2013
Service Tax Appeal No. 2183 of 2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 105/ST/DLH/2012 dated 4.6.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi]
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s IILM Film & Media School Appellant
Vs.
CST, New Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Krishna Kant, Advocate - for the appellant
Shri Amresh Jain, D.R - for the respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
F. Order No. 56142/2013 dated 17.4.2013
Per Justice G. Raghuram :
Heard ld. Advocate Shri Krishan Kant for the appellant and ld. D.R. Shri Amresh Jain for Revenue.
2. By an adjudication order dated 28.5.2010 the appellant was assessed to service tax liability of Rs.5,28,030/- and the stipulated cess, interest and penalty. Aggrieved, the appellant unsuccessfully preferred an appeal which was rejected by the impugned order dated 4.6.2012 of the Service Tax Appellate Commissioner, New Delhi.
3. The appellant runs a film and media business under the auspicious of M/s RKKR foundation (a Society) and conducts the courses in B.A in journalism; post graduate diploma courses in Print, Television; on-line journalism and media management apart from short term courses such as anchoring and dramatic arts, direction and script writing; television production; TV and Radio anchoring and presentation etc. That the appellant is a commercial training and coaching centre which imparts commercial training and coaching within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 65(27) read with Section 65 (26) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is thus liable to levy of service tax, is not in dispute. The appellant, however, claimed exemption/immunity to the levy of service tax on the basis of Notification Nos. 9/2003-ST; and 24/2004-ST dated 20.6.2003 and 10.9.2004 respectively. These notifications were issued by Central Government in purported exercise of powers under Section 93 of the Act. In Notification No. 9/2003 dated 20.6.2003 taxable services provided in relation to commercial training or coaching, inter alia by a vocational training institute has been exempted from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66(2) of the Act. By a subsequent Notification dated 10.9.2004, exemption for taxable services provided in relation to commercial training or coaching by a computer training institute was deleted. Both Notifications defined vocational training institute as meaning a commercial training or coaching centre which provides vocational training or coaching that imparts skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self employment, directly after such training or coaching.
4. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of the exemption claimed by the appellant for the reasons set out in para 17.4 of the adjudication order. The reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority may be summarised. According to the adjudicating authority the course offered by the appellant cannot be described as a vocational course as by definition, such institute should provide training or coaching that impart skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self employment, directly after such training or coaching; it is evident that on their own, the courses provided by the assessee per se do not enable employment or self-employment directly after such training or coaching. This conclusion is recorded by the adjudicating authority bereft of any reopening process. There is no process of reasoning that precedes this conclusion. It is a settled principle that every decision, in particular a decision recorded by a quasi-judicial or an assessing authority should disclose reasons for the conclusion. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. M.L. Capoor AIR 1974 SC 87, reasons are the links between the material on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusion. It is not evident from the adjudicating order how it became evident to the adjudicating authority that the courses offered by the appellant do not prepare students to take up employment or self employment directly after such training or coaching.
5. The appellant professes to impart coaching/training in several areas already enumerated which include imparting of skills in areas relevant to journalism, print or audio visual and documentary film making. The exemption Notification merely requires that to be eligible for such exemption the institution must be a commercial training or coaching centre (which the appellant admittedly is, even according to Revenue) which provides vocational coaching or training that imparts skills which would enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self employment, directly after such training or coaching.
6. Ld. DR Shri Jain would lay emphasis on the word directly which precedes the phrase after such training or coaching, to contend that absent evidence of self employment or employment by the trainee after the course of instruction received, the assessee would not be entitled to the benefits of the exemption Notification. This contention by Revenue does not commend acceptance by this Tribunal. The exemption Notification, on true and fair construction merely requires that vocational coaching or training imparted must imparts skills which enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment. It does not require establishment of the fact whether one or some or all of the students of the assessee institute have obtained employment or have pursued self employment after conclusion of the course of instruction.
7. On the aforesaid analysis, the adjudication order dated 28.5.2010 as confirmed by the appellate order dated 4.6.2012 cannot be sustained. These orders are accordingly quashed. In the facts and circumstances however, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) RM 1