C.S. Natarajan, Ranjana Bagry, Aruna R. Krishnan and D. Sankar Versus CST Chennai and Principal Commissioner of CGST & CE, Chennai North Commissionerate
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 792 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 253 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 16-3-2018
ST\/41005\/2013, ST\/41061\/2013, ST\/Misc\/41038\/2017 & ST\/41931\/2016, ST\/41932\/2016, ST\/41510\/2016, E\/41511\/2016 – FINAL ORDER No. 40978-40983\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nMs. P. Syrija, Advocate For the Appellant
\nShri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe MA filed by Revenue for change of cause title is allowed.
\n2. The appellants are engaged in running a Spoken English Language Coaching Center along with personality development in the name of “ZEAL”. The department was of the view that the said activity would fall under 'Commercial Coaching or Training Service' and the fees collected from<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 013 = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n cation No.24\/2004-ST dt. 10.09.2004 is reproduced as under : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" C.S. Natarajan, Ranjana Bagry, Aruna R. Krishnan and D. Sankar Versus CST Chennai and Principal Commissioner of CGST & CE, Chennai North CommissionerateService Tax2018 (6) TMI 792 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 253 (Tri. – Chennai)CESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 16-3-2018ST\/41005\/2013, ST\/41061\/2013, ST\/Misc\/41038\/2017 & ST\/41931\/2016, ST\/41932\/2016, ST\/41510\/2016, E\/41511\/2016 – FINAL ORDER … Continue reading “C.S. Natarajan, Ranjana Bagry, Aruna R. Krishnan and D. Sankar Versus CST Chennai and Principal Commissioner of CGST & CE, Chennai North Commissionerate”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12250","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12250"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12250\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nJuly 2009 to Dec 2009
\n26,254
\nShe submitted that the said course conducted by the appellant falls within the category of 'vocational training' and therefore is eligible for exemption as per Notification No.24\/2004-ST. She relied upon the decisions in the case of Mariya Computer Systems (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Bhopal – 2017 (49) STR 539 (Tri-Del) and this Tribunal's Final Order No.40129\/2018 dt. 16.01.2018 (Appeal No. ST\/302\/2010) in the case of Col's Calibre Vs CCE&ST Coimbatore.
\n4. Ld. A.R Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant is conducting merely English speaking course and it does not qualify as 'vocational training course'. He relied upon the case of Ulhas Vasant Bapat Vs CCE Pune – 2015 (37) STR 1034 (Tri.-Mumbai) and submitted that the Tribunal in the said case had held that a English speaking course cannot be considered as vocational training course. It is also pointed out that after 2011, Notification No.DGE & T-19(4)<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable services provided in relation to commercial training or coaching, by, –
\n(a) a vocational training institute; or
\n(b) a recreational training institute,
\nto any person, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Act.
\nExplanation.- for the purposes of this notification, –
\n(i) „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.
\n……”
\n7. The Tribunal in the case of Mariya Computer Systems as well as the final order cited supra has analyzed the is<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n