ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 14/2006 (H-II) S. Tax dated 15-9-2006 by which the benefit of Notification No. 9/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 has been denied to the appellants. The Notification grants benefit in respect of “Vocational Coaching and Training Services” provided by – typing and shorthand institute, TV/Vehicle Repair Training Institute, Tailoring Institute, Industrial Training Institute, Foreign language Institute. The Notification No. 9/2003 clearly defines “Vocational Training Institute” as follows:
“Vocational Training Institute” means a commercial training or coaching centre which provides vocational coaching or training that impart skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment, directly after such training or coaching.
The Commissioner has proceeded to deny the benefit solely on the ground that they have not registered themselves with AICTE as a Vocational Institute.
2. The Senior Counsel pointed out that the Notification does not envisage registration of a ‘Vocational Training Institute’. He submits that so long as the trainees who achieve skills seek employment or undertake self employment directly after such training or coaching, then they are eligible for the benefit of the Notification. It is his submission that the training which is being granted to the trainee is only with an objective to find a vocation. The appellant is a training institute and providing coaching and training in business management and fashion technology, advertising, graphic design, media studies to the students. They are covered under the category of “Vocational Training or Coaching Services”. The question in this appeal only pertains to the extension of benefit of Notification No. 9/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 and the Commissioner (A) has given a narrow interpretation to deny the benefit solely on the ground that the assessee are not registered with AICTE as a ‘Vocational Institute’. He submits that the order is not legal and proper.
3. The learned JDR reiterated the Commissioner’s finding.
4. On a careful consideration, we find that there is no dispute about the appellant being covered under the category of ‘Vocational Training or Coaching Services’. The Notification in question grants the benefit of exemption from Service Tax in relation to commercial training or coaching services by –
(a) a vocational training institute;
(b) a computer training institute; or
(c) a recreational training institute.
4.1 The vocational training institute is already defined, which is noted supra. The Notification does not envisage registration of the institute with AICTE as a ‘Vocational Institute’. The Commissioner (A) has read in the Notification something which is not stated therein and denied the benefit. The denial of benefit is not justified in view of the fact that the trainee of the appellant institute receive skills to enable them to seek employment or undertaken self employment directly after such training or coaching, which is not denied by the authorities. They are eligible for the benefit of the Notification. There is no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)