Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Centre For Research & Industrial Staff ... vs Cce,Bhopal on 15 December, 2016
IN THE CUSPTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/Decision:15.12.2016
Service Tax Appeal No.3435/2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.128/BPL/2012 dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal]
Centre for Research & Industrial Staff Performance Appellants
Vs.
CCE,Bhopal Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri Arun Mehrotra, CA for the appellant. Rep. by Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the respondent. Coram: Honble Shri S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No.55974/2016 Per B. Ravichandran:
The appeal is against order dated 16.07.2012 of Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal.The appellants are engaged in providing training and coaching services . The Revenue entertained a view that the services are taxable and accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them to recover service tax under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching Services for the period 2004-05 to 006-07. The proceedings concluded and the Original Authority confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 12,21,351/- and imposed various penalties on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in corroboration with the German Government, the appellants were providing coaching and training services in the field of Auto CAD/CAM, Computer Networking, Multi-media, DTP, Computer repair and maintenance , call centre training, etc. The only dispute in the present appeal is that whether these activities of coaching and training will fall under the category of Vocational Training or not. Ld. Counsel submitted that all these activities of coaching and training are specifically for job related activities and are correctly called as Vocational Training. They are covered by exemption notification no.24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004.
3. Ld. AR submitted that the training imparted by the appellant only enhances skill level of the trainee and as such, cannot be called as a vocational training.
4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records.
5. The nature of training imparted by the appellant is admittedly on specific areas, mostly connected to the skill of using computer programmes and also repair and maintenance of computers. Examining scope of training in skills, it is seen that there are imparted skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly after such training or coaching. The reasoning adopted by the Lower Authorities that these training activities only increased the skill level, which the trainee already possess, is fallacious. It is not a requirement that for vocational training, the trainee should be admitted without any basic skills. Going by nature of the training imparted by the appellants, we have no doubt that these are covered under the category of Vocational Training or Coaching Services. The notification No.24/2004 exempts taxable services provided in relation to the Commercial Training or Coaching Services by the Vocational Training Institute. In terms of the scope of the training imparted by the appellant and the coverage of notification no.24/04-ST, we find that the appellants are rightly eligible for the said notification. Accordingly, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
[order dictated and pronounced in the open court] (S.K. Mohanty ) Member (Judicial) ( B. Ravichandran ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1