2019 (2) TMI 1247 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Vocational institute or not – professional training to individuals in the field of foreign trade for a consideration at Madurai, Coimbatore and Chennai – Department was of the view that the appellant’s institute is not a vocational institute as the participants do not immediately qualify for employment or for self-employment – Held that:- The appellant has rendered professional training relating to various procedures and statutory compliances to be made in relation to export / import of goods in the field of foreign trade. The training course is designed in such a way that all procedures, statutory requirements, foreign trade policy of the Government, prospective industries and area of export / import etc. are made familiar to the participants – they squarely fall within the definition of vocation training institute in the Explanation (i) of Notification 9/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 and 24/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 to qualify for exemption from ta
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
or employment or for self-employment. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issue of show cause notice dated 20.10.2009 inter alia proposing service tax liability of ₹ 2,93,315/- under Commercial Training or Coaching Service for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009. Vide adjudication order dated 1.2.2010, the lower authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,93,315/- along with interest thereon for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 as also imposed penalty under various provisions of law. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same vide impugned order dated 24.4.2011. Hence this appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, ld. counsel Shri M. Kannann made oral and written submissions which are broadly summarized as under:- 2.1 The appellant has rendered professional training relating to various procedures and statutory compliances to be made in relation to export / import of goods in the field of foreign trade. The training course
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
61 (Del.) Commissioner of Service Tax Vs.. Ashu Exports Ltd. b. 2019 (20) GSTL 84 (Tri. Chennai) – M. Rajan Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai c. 2012 (25) STR 359 (Tri. Del.) – Ashu Export Promoters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi d. 2007 (8) STR 475 (Tri. Bang.) – Wigan & Leigh Collage India Ltd. Vs. CST, Hyderabad. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. We find that the ld. counsel is correct in his assertion that the ratio of the afore stated decisions would cover when Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 and 24/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 were in force. This being so, there cannot be any tax liability for the predominant period of dispute, except for the period between 1.7.2004 and 9.9.2004 under Commercial Training and Coaching service. However, for the period from 1.7.2004 to 9.9.2004, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be remanded back to the adjudicating
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =