News Update

CBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerCentre receives Rs 18.5 lakh crore tax revenue upto Feb monthUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayExpert Committee on developing GIFT IFSC as 'Global Finance and Accounting Hub' submits report to IFSCAIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEADefence Production issues notification for re-organisation of DGQAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of Lokpal
 
ST - Respondents not providing service to trainees but to central/state government - classifiable under BAS and exempted under 14/2004-ST: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 27, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

It is the contention of the AR that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the scope of issue by deciding the service classification of the assessee without adducing evidence. Inasmuch as the respondent had registered under Commercial Training & Coaching Services but subsequently sought to change the classification of the services to Business Auxiliary Service and claimed exemption in terms of notification no. 14/2004-STbased on a letter dated JS(TRU) to JS(Rural Department) vide DO letter no. 34/164/2011-TRU dated 26.07.2011 wherein it is clarified that training under centrally sponsored schemes are exempted.

The AR also emphasized that there is a specific clarification issued by Director (Service Tax) in the respondent's own case vide letter no. F.No. 137/02/2011-Service tax dated 10.05.2011 wherein opposite views have been expressed.

Moreover, the refund claim had been filed on 05.09.2011 after a lapse of eight years and, therefore, is barred by limitation, the AR added.

It was further argued that notification 14/2004-S.T. provides exemption only if the activity is in relation to agriculture, printing, textile processing or education; that the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly interpreted the term Education; that the nature of course conducted/ service provided by the claimant such as repairing of air conditioner, agri-tourism, aquarium making, dairy milk, milk products making, electric motor rewinding, chalk and candle making are all related to skill development to earn livelihood and, therefore, do not come under the category of education.

The respondent submitted that they are a programme implementing agency working at the behest of Government of Maharashtra through MSFC, MSSIDC with a view to encourage entrepreneurship; that they are working under centrally sponsored schemes through various ministries and departments of government of India and state; that they are not providing any service to the trainee but they are providing training to the trainees on behalf of the central/state government, therefore, their services fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Service.

The Bench observed that the following three issues are needed to be decided -

i) If the service provided by the respondent is covered under Commercial Training & Coaching Services or Business Auxiliary Service.

ii) If the appellants are entitled to benefit of notification 14/2004-S.T. dated 10.09.2004

iii) If the refund claim is barred by limitation.

And held as under -

++ The fact that the respondent are not providing any service to the trainee but they are providing service to central/state government, it is apparent the service provided by them is correctly classified under Business Auxiliary Service, as service provided on behalf of their client. It is seen that order in original itself classifies the services as Business Auxiliary Service.

++ Insofar as benefit of notification 14/2004-S.T. is concerned it is seen that the same is available only if the activity is undertaken in relation to agriculture, printing, textile processing or education. …it is seen that the definition includes training as a component of education. It is seen that the activities conducted by the respondent are in nature of training for a particular purpose like repairing of air conditioner, agri-tourism, aquarium making etc. In these circumstances, it cannot be denied that these activities are related to education. Thus the benefit of notification 14/04-S.T. cannot be denied to the respondent.

++ Insofar as third issue on limitation is concerned, it is seen that the same is not challenged by the review order.

Concluding that there is no merit in the Revenue appeal, the same was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-2181-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023