ORDER
D.N. Panda, Member (J)
1. The appeal has been filed contesting that decision of the first First Appellate Authority is erroneous to interpret Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. dated 10-9-04 with Notification No. 19/2005-S.T., dated 7-6-05. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that in accordance with law, training and coaching centres were brought to the ambit of tax by Notification No. 7/2003 dated 20-6-03 and the rate was prescribed from 1-7-03 in terms of that Notification. But three training institutes namely, vocational training institute, computer training institute and recreational training institute – were notified to be exempted from the purview of the service tax vide Notification No. 9/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-03. This Notification remained in force for some time. In the said Notification, meaning of these three institutes was also provided by way of explanation. This Notification operated till 30th June, 2004. Thereafter, on 10-9-04, a Notification bearing No. 24/2004-S.T. was issued to extend exemption from service tax to the vocational institute and recreational training institute. The term, vocational training institute was defined to mean a commercial training or coaching centre which provides vocational training or coaching that imparts skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly after such training or coaching. The term, commercial training or coaching centre was defined by Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994. According to the learned Counsel, Government felt that rendering of skill and coaching through commercial training or coaching would enable trainees either to seek employment or self-employment. Such a benefit was granted and the vocational training included computer education within its fold. Therefore, it was redundant to specifically state that vocational training institutes excluded computer training in terms of Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-04. The intention of not extending exemption from service tax to computer training institutes was clear from the intention conveyed in Notification No. 19/2005-S.T., dated 7-6-05. This Notification incorporated a proviso in the opening paragraph of Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-04 with intent to specifically exclude the computer training institutes from the purview of exemption from service tax.
2. Learned Counsel submitted that although the Appellant was rendering computer training, they were entitled to the exemption for the impugned period from 10-9-04 to 15-6-05 by virtue of Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-04 till the computer training institutes were excluded from exemption w.e.f. 16-6-05 by Notification No. 19/2005-S.T., dated 7-6-05. When the Notification No. 9/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-03 ceased operate with effect from 30-6-03, the only Notification that remained in force was Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-04 for the purpose of granting exemption, and computer education was not beyond the sweep of scope of that exemption. According to him, when an exemption was granted, it is the normal practice of the legislature that the exemption is not withdrawn retrospectively, unless there is an express term for such withdrawal retrospectively by express language in the Notification itself. Therefore, the authorities below have committed an error to appreciate the law and for such error of commission, the Appellant should not suffer and will be prejudiced by the impugned levy.
3. Learned JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that when there is no express grant of exemption, there is no implied implication of the Notification. Accordingly, the Notification No. 9/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-03 ceasing to operate from 30-6-03 no more granted exemption to computer training institutes. Therefore, the Appellant’s contention that Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-04 grants them benefit, is devoid of any merit.
4. Heard both sides and perused all the Notifications that were cited. A bare perusal of the Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-04 does not exhibit that computer training was not vocational training and such training would not enable the trainee to seek employment. Therefore, a training which imparts skill and trains a trainee to seek employment or self-employment in whatever mode that may be, should be through a vocational training institute in absence of any contrary intention of the legislature. It is a settled position of law that a right of exemption conferred cannot be abrogated retrospectively or curtailed by implication which was not the intention of the legislature. Learned Counsel’s submission that Notification No. 19/2005-S.T., dated 7-6-2005 no doubt has taken away the benefit of exemption, is acceptable. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the impugned order does not sustain and the appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open Court.)