Smt. Mallika Jeyabalan, Proprietrix, M\/s. Agilam Institute of Foreign Trade Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1247 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 18-2-2019
Appeal No. ST\/435\/2011 – Final Order No. 40333\/2019
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant
\nMs. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe appellants have conducted 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 <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n nann made oral and written submissions which are broadly summarized as under:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Smt. Mallika Jeyabalan, Proprietrix, M\/s. Agilam Institute of Foreign Trade Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise MaduraiService Tax2019 (2) TMI 1247 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 18-2-2019Appeal No. ST\/435\/2011 – Final Order No. 40333\/2019Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate … Continue reading “Smt. Mallika Jeyabalan, Proprietrix, M\/s. Agilam Institute of Foreign Trade Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai”<\/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-16926","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16926","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=16926"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16926\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16926"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16926"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16926"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2.1 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 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.
\n2.2 In this background, 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 taxability under Commercial T<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nd. 2007 (8) STR 475 (Tri. Bang.) – Wigan & Leigh Collage India Ltd. Vs. CST, Hyderabad.
\n3. On the other hand, ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. 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 <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n