By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DECEMBER 12, 2018: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

The issue is whether a commercial training or coaching centre providing training and coaching of foreign languages such as French, German, Japanese, Spanish etc. falls under 'vocational training' and is consequently exempted under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003.

The AR submitted that training in foreign languages does not fall under the vocational training whereas the same is clearly covered by Commercial training or coaching service and is, therefore, liable to service tax. It is emphasized that as per the definition of vocational training institute, the same covers only that training which enables the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly after such training. Inasmuch as in the present case, merely by learning foreign language, it does not enable a trainee to get a job directly and hence exemption under the notification is not available.

The respondent submitted that identical issue has been covered by the Tribunal's following judgments:-

(i) Anurag Soni vs. CCE, Bhopal - Order no. 52009/2017 dated 21 February 2017 &

(ii) Innovative Training Place (P) Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi - 2017-TIOL-1724-CESTAT-DEL.

The Bench extracted the findings from both the aforesaid orders and observed thus-

"4.1 From the above decisions, it can be observed that the training in the present case imparting the foreign languages is at par with the training in English language. Therefore, both the judgments are squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the scope of the Board circular, has given a clearing finding and also relying on the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Col's Calibre … - 2011-TIOL-1240-CESTAT-MAD, which was the issue of training centre for communicative English, personality enhancement etc., has given a detailed finding for setting aside the demand confirmed in the original order."

Concluding that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, the same was upheld and the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-3737-CESTAT-MUM)