Ludhiana vs M/S Sportking Institute Of Fashion ...

[Arising out of OIA NO.30/CE/Ludhi./2009, dt.26.02.2009, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals|) Chandigarh]

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,

Ludhiana Appellant

Vs

M/s Sportking Institute of Fashion Technology Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri D.V. Nagvenkar, Authorised Representative

For Respondent: Ms.Krati Somani, Advocate

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No

Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT

(Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication

in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen

the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes

authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:19.01.2015

Final Order No.50957/2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax alongwith interest and imposed penalty on the Respondents under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching Services for the period August 2005 to December 2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and held that the Respondents are entitled for exemption from payment of Service Tax being Vocational Training Institute under Notification No.24/2004-ST, dt.10.09.2004.

2. Notification No.24/2004-ST, dt.10.09.2004 exempted the whole of Service Tax in relation to Commercial Training or Coaching by Vocational Training Institutes. Clause (i) of Explanation of the said notification provides Vocational Training Institute means a Commercial Training or Coaching Centre, which provides vocational training or coaching that impart skill to enable the trainees to seek employment or undertake an employment directly after such training or coaching.

3. Ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sadhana Educational & People Dev. Services Ltd Vs CCE Pune-III  2014 (33) STR 575 (Tri-Mumbai).

4. On the other hand, ld.Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the decision of the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of CST Delhi Vs M/s Ashu Exports Pvt. Ltd.  2014 (34) STR 161 (Del.).

5. We find that the Notification No.24/2004-ST has been amended by the Notification No.3/2010-ST, dt.27.02.2010 and the explanation relating to the Vocational Training Institute is replaced. As per the said amendment, Vocational Training Institute means an Industrial Training Institute or Industrial Training Centre affiliated to National Council for the Vocational Training, offering courses in designated trades as notified under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The Tribunal in the case of M/s Sadhana Educational & People Dev. Services (supra) observed that though the said explanation was inserted in 2010, but it would cover the scope of term Vocational Training in specific terms for earlier period. We find that in the case of M/s Ashu Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the issue before the Honble Delhi High Court is whether the term Vocational Training Institute in Notification No.24/2004-ST covers the Respondent and the course offered by them are exempted from tax from the period 01.07.2003 to September 2008. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:-

11.?It is evident that the term vocational training institute included the commercial training or coaching centers which provide vocational coaching or training meant to impart skills to enable the trainees to seek employment or to have self-employment directly after such training or coaching. The notion of such training institute having been recognized or accredited to nowhere emerges from such a broad definition. The further Notification of 2010 substitutes the existing explanation to the term vocational training institute and narrowing it to those institutes affiliated to National Council for Vocational Training offering courses in designated trade in fact supports the assessee. Had the intention been to exempt only such class or category of institutions, the appropriate authority would have designed such a condition in the original Notification of 2003 and Notification No. 10 of 2004 which had been relied upon in this case.

12.?For these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal did not fall into error in following its previous ruling in Wigan & Leigh (supra). The question of law framed is accordingly answered against the Revenue and in favour of assessee.

6. It is seen from the impugned order that the Respondents contended that they are imparting Vocational Training since their students were employed after training in the fashion industry. The industry itself comes in the campus for taking the students for employment directly after completion of the course. The students could also undertake self employment directly after completion of the course. We find that the Revenue has not disputed this fact in the grounds of appeal. Thus, it is clearly evident that the training provided by the Respondent would enable the trainees to get employment from the campus.

7. In view of the above, respectfully following the decision of Honble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Ashu Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (P.K. Das)

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb

4