The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), remanded back matter to determine on what portion of coaching services is covered by service tax demand.
According to the Department, the appellant M/s. SRM Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology, the appellant is engaged in conduct of training courses in the field of Hotel and Catering Management and are awarding certificates to the trainees on completion of said courses.
It appeared that the appellant is providing commercial training and coaching services and had not the appeal has been is filed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority confirming the demand of service tax under the category of “Commercial Training or Coaching Services”.
It was submitted by the Consultant that the one-year course is conducted as per the approval and recognition of the Industries Department of State of Tamil Nadu. As per letter dated 03.09.2009, the appellant has been given permission by the Department of Industries, Tamil Nadu to conduct the said course which includes practical and theory classes. This course is also thus a recognised course as the certificates are issued by the Industries Department of the State of Tamil Nadu. The demands therefore cannot sustain.
Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994 defines Commercial Training and Coaching Centre as ‘any institute or establishment providing commercial training or coaching for imparting skill or knowledge or lessons on any subject in any field other than sports, with or without issuance of certificate and includes coaching or tutorial classes but does not include pre-school coaching or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognised by law for the time being in force’.
Remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration a Two-Member Bench of the Tribunal comprising M Ajit Kumar, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that “We are not able to understand whether separate fees are collected from students for this course. The order is not clear as to the details of demand in regard to this course. The appellant has not been able to show as to what portion of the demand is covered by the fees collected for the course approved by the Industries Department.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
