1. Brief facts which arise for consideration are that the Appellant is engaged in conducting various courses some of which are approved by the AICTE or by "Education Institute of American Hotel and Lodging Institute" (EL - AHLA) or by International Air Transportation Institute (IATA). The Appellant were issued two Show Cause Notices for the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006 and 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 demanding Service Tax along with interest and penalty on the ground that the activity of the Appellant are taxable under the category of "Commercial Coaching Center". The Ld. Additional Commissioner vide OIO dt. 31.08.2009 confirmed the demand on courses run by the Appellant under the permission given by the Manipal IT Education and courses recognized by the American Hotel and Lodging Association on the ground that as per the Appellant the courses are conducted as per MOU between the Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Lodging Association and the National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology, New Delhi ('NCHMCT' in short). The MOU does not authorize NCHMCT to approve the courses run by the Appellant. It is not a regulatory body for hospitability/hotel management which lies with the AICTE only. He also confirmed demand in respect of courses recognized by IATA. The Appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the demand in respect of courses recognized by Manipal IT Education, however confirmed the demand in respect of courses recognized by EI-AHLA and IATA. The Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of courses run by EI - AHLA held that the said courses are not recognized by any university or institute recognized by law in India. The course being run under an agreement with EI - AHLA were not resulting in award of any certificate or Diploma which is recognized by law in India. That the MOU between EI-AHLA and NCHMCT is only for improving the professionalism of industry and academia in India in the broad field of Hotel Management and the said MOU nowhere grants any statutory approval to the courses of EI-AHLA in any manner. NCHMCT is not university of institute and its validity of the certificates issued by EI-AHLA. The AHLA has signed MOU with IGNOU on 17.09.2007 to launch degree programmes in International Hospitality Management Administration. Subsequent IGNOU entered MOU with Appellant to conduct the said courses. This further proves that prior to the degree programmes of IGNOU, the certificate EI-AHLA were not recognised in law. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the demand in respect of IATA on the ground that on examination of certificates of Authorisation issued by the IATA Training & Development Institute, there is no indication that the said organisation is an institute or establishment recognised by law to award Diploma certificates to the students. He also relied upon the judgment in case of Sadhna Educational & People Development Services Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune - III, Final Order No. A/2107/13/CSTB/CI dt. 23.10.2013. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal.

2. Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, Consultant appearing for the Appellant submits that the courses offered by the appellant are exempted under the definition of Finance Act/Service Tax Rules as the same are for vocational training. He also relied on the Tribunal's judgment in case of Wigan & Leigh College (India) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner, Hyderabad : (2007 (8) S.T.R. 475) (Tri.-Bang.), WLC College India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi : 2012 (27) S.T.R. 377] (Tri.Del), IILM Film & Media School Vs. Comm. Service Tax, New Delhi : 2013)(32) S.T.R. 321) (Tri.-Del).

3. Shri Atul Sharma, ld. Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the respondent revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

4. We have perused the facts of the case and submission made by both the sides. We find that during the relevant period not only the degree/diploma courses recognized by the University were exempted from Service Tax, but even the Vocational courses were also exempted in terms of Notification No. 9/2003 - ST dt. 20.06.2003. We find that in case of courses run by Appellant in MOU with the EI-AHLA, the Appellant has provided the list of students who on completion of course were employed with the Hotels and Hospitality Industry. If a course enables the student to acquire the knowledge and skills which enables them to seek employment or undertake self employment directly after such training or coaching, the said course will be covered by the vocational training and eligible for the exemption. The Appellant institute is providing both theoretical as well as practical training in the filed of hotel, tourism, airlines, travel agencies and tour operators. In the case of M/s. WLC COLLEGE INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI : 2012 (27) S.T.R. 377 (Tri. - Del.) the Tribunal allowed the exemption by holding as under:

5. The Counsel for the appellants submits that the question whether the impugned training would qualify to be 'vocational training' has been decided by the Tribunal in their own case in respect of their branch at Bangalore vide order reported at : 2007 (8) S.T.R. 475. The Counsel further submits that the matter was examined in great detail by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of another appellant providing such training in the case of Ashu Export Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. CST New Delhi : 2012 (25) S.T.R. 359. It is his submission that these two decisions have examined the issue at great length with reference to various documents published and also pronouncements made by the Government of India decision. He would like to rely on the said decision and prays for the benefit of said notification by setting aside the impugned demand.

6. The learned AR for revenue reiterates the findings in the order of Commissioner confirming the demand but he is not able to make out any distinction how the facts in this case are different from the facts of the two decisions cited above.

7. We have considered arguments of both sides and we find that this matter has been already examined at length by two different Benches of the Tribunal and final decisions given to the effect that the training will qualify as 'vocational training'. Therefore, relying on the said decisions, we allow the appeal filed by the appellants with consequential relief.

The above order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi high Court as reported in Commissioner v. WLC College India Ltd. - 2015 (38) S.T.R. J207 (Del.). Similarly in case of Canon School of Catering and Hotel Management 2013 - 2 TMI-158-CESTAT - CHENNAI, the courses of Hotel management run by the institute were held to be exempted.

In case of courses run under the authorization of IATA, we find that the said courses also are job oriented in nature. The GDS FARE and Ticketing is run under the affiliation of IATA which is body with Global recognized operations and such affiliation makes the students acquire skills and training to acquire employment. There is no doubt that the courses run by the Appellant institute are thus providing vocational knowledge and training and cannot be made liable for service tax during the impugned period. Our views are also fortified by the various judgments of the Tribunal. In case of ANURAG SONI Vs. CCE, BHOPAL : 2017 (52) S.T.R. 18 (Tri. - Del.), the Tribunal held as under:

5. Notifications No. 9/2003 and 24/2004 exempts vocational training institutes from payment of Service Tax under tax entry 'commercial training or coaching'. "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. Admittedly, the appellants are engaged in providing coaching in English, French and German language skills. Training included improving the skills of pronunciation, manner of speaking etc. The original authority recorded that this sort of training imparted by the appellant helps in getting employment for the participant in Multi National Companies and various Corporations/Institutions where improved particular skill in speaking is a required qualification. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the original authority. The impugned order has at length examined the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Official Languages Act, 1963, Article 343(2) of Constitution of India and the status of English in India. We find that the whole discussion is misplaced and irrelevant to decide the taxability of the appellant under 'commercial coaching or training'. As rightly contended by the appellant, it is not the status of the English, but the nature of coaching given by appellant which is relevant to decide the exemption under notification. Neither the tax entry nor the exemption notifications are having reference to any point of discussion which formed basis for the conclusion drawn by the impugned order. We find that the impugned order was mis-directed when examining the legal issue. Accordingly same is set aside.
In case of CENTRE FOR RESEARCH & INDUSTRIAL STAFF PERFORMANCE Vs. CCE, BHOPAL : 2017 (49) S.T.R. 560 (Tri. - Del.), It was held:

5. The nature of training imparted by the appellant is admittedly on specific areas, mostly connected to the skill of using computer programmes and also repair and maintenance of computers. Examining scope of training in skills, it is seen that there are imparted skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly after such training or coaching. The reasoning adopted by the Lower Authorities that these training activities only increased the skill level, which the trainee already possess, is fallacious. It is not a requirement that for vocational training, the trainee should be admitted without any basic skills. Going by nature of the training imparted by the appellants, we have no doubt that these are covered under the category of "Vocational Training or Coaching Services". The Notification No. 24/2004 exempts taxable services provided in relation to the Commercial Training or Coaching Services by the Vocational Training Institute. In terms of the scope of the training imparted by the appellant and the coverage of Notification No. 24/2004-S.T, we find that the appellants are rightly eligible for the said notification. Accordingly, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
In case of GLOBE COLLEGE OF TRAVEL AND TOURISM Vs. C.C.E. & S.T., MANGALORE : 2016 (43) S.T.R. 241 (Tri. - Bang.), it was held:

Both sides have been heard in detail. The matter concerns with the benefit of Notifications No. 9/2003-S.T, dated 20-6-2003 and No. 24/2004-S.T, dated 10-9-2004. The appellant says that they have been conducting vocational trainings on 'international travel and tourism' under the guidance and authorization of International Air Transport Association (IATA), Canada. The candidates undergo this course with the objective of seeking employment in the sector of Travel & Tourism Industry. The appellant has given a list of the last batch of the students saying that all their last batch students got the job with different travel & tourism companies including various Airlines. Learned advocate, Shri M.S. Nagaraj appearing for the appellant argues that considering above facts, they are entitled to the benefit of Notifications No. 9/2003-S.T, dated 20-6-2003 and No. 24/2004-S.T, dated 10-9-2004 for the respective period. In support of this claim, learned advocate cites Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi v. Ashu Exports Pvt. Ltd: 2014-TIOL-379-HC-DEL-ST : 2014 (34) S.T.R. 161 (Del.)] and submits that it has upheld the CESTAT, Delhi decision for the same service in case of service provider, Ashu Export Promoters (P) Ltd.

2. Learned AR, Shri N. Jagdish appearing for the Revenue argues that the training course conducted by the appellant is not a recognized course under any Indian law. He argues that it is also not verified that all the candidates who underwent this course got vocational employment thereafter. He says that as this course is not recognized by any Indian law, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification given to such courses.

3. After considering the facts of the case and the submissions of both the sides, it is clear that the contents of the Notifications namely 9/2003-S.T, dated 20-6-2003 and 24/2004-S.T, dated 10-9-2004 clearly cover the training course (commercial training/coaching) being conducted by the appellant, who are a vocational training institute as mentioned in the Explanation given in the subject notification. There cannot be any other interpretation of these notifications and the contents of these notifications clearly favour the appellant in case of the course (training/coaching) in question being conducted by them. Consequently, the appellant succeeds in this appeal with consequential relief, if any.

In case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Vs. ASHU EXPORTS PVT. LTD: 2014 (34) S.T.R. 161 (Del.), the Hon'ble High Court held as under:

5. Section 65(zzc) as it originally stood when it was notified w.e.f. 1-7-2003 reads as follows:-

(26) "commercial training or coaching" means any training or coaching provided by a commercial training or coaching centre;

6. It would be relevant to notice that concurrently with the introduction or levy of vocational institutions in 2003, the Government deemed it fit to exempt that activity almost simultaneously by the Notification dated 20-6-2003. The only condition that Notification attached was that it would be enforced till 29-2-2003; in all other particulars it was nearly identical with the exemption Notification of 10-9-2004 quoted in the preceding portion of this judgment. On 4-2-2004 by a Notification No. 1/2004-S.T, the period of validity of the previous Notification was extended to 30-6-2004. It was in these circumstances that on 10-9-2004 Exemption Notification No. 24/2004-S.T relied upon by the assessee was brought into force. We may also notice that subsequently in 2010 by a Notification, the following Explanation was substituted in place of the Explanation that existed earlier:-

"Notification: 3/2010-S.T, dated 27-Feb-2010

Commercial Training or Coaching service - Exemption Notification No. 24/2004-S.T. amended

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 24/2004-Service Tax, dated the 10th September, 2004, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R. 598(E), dated the 10th September, 2004, namely:-

In the said Notification, in the Explanation, for (i) and the definition against it, the following item shall be substituted, namely:-

"(i) vocational training institute" means an Industrial Training Institute or an Industrial Training Centre affiliated to the National Council for Vocational Training, offering courses in designated trades as notified under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961).

2. This notification shall come into force on and from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India."

7. Simultaneously, the Department also issued another Notification on 27-2-2010 amending the previous Notification of 10-9-2004 to the following effect:-

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 24/2004-Service Tax, dated the 10th September, 2004, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R. 598(E), dated the 10th September, 2004, namely:-

In the said Notification, in the Explanation, for (i) and the definition against it, the following item shall be substituted, namely:-

(i) "vocational training institute" means an Industrial Training Institute or an Industrial Training Centre affiliated to the National Council for Vocational Training, offering courses in designated trades as notified under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961).

2. This notification shall come into force on and from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India."

8. It is evident from the above narration that the levy was sought to be introduced for the first time w.e.f. 1-7-2003. Simultaneously, vocational training institutes defined specifically by a Notification No. 9 were exempted. It is not in dispute that the exemption continues even till date. The only difference being that by the latest Notification of 2010, the expression had been narrowed to mean that "those institutes affiliated to the National Council for Vocational Training and offering courses in designated trade as noticed in the Apprentice Act".

9. As to what is vocational has been left advisedly open to the authorities. Wigan & Leigh was a case where the institution was unrecognized and not affiliated to AICTE or any technical body. The contention - that was ultimately accepted by the Tribunal as to the meaning of the expression "vocational training institute" of "coaching centre" is found in the following extract of that judgment:-

"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."

10. The Tribunal noticing the specific term of what is meant by vocational training institute, i.e., computer training institute or recreation training institute or a coaching centre, was of the opinion that so long as the broad nature of the activity is to impart skills to enable the beneficiaries to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly, the conditions were satisfied. In M/s. Sadhna Educational and People Development Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise : 2013 (12) TMI 735 : 2014 (33) S.T.R. 575 (Tri. - Mum.), the findings of the Tribunal - whose order is an elaborate one - mostly containing the extract of the entire syllabus and brochure of the institution is as follows:-

"8.

Learned Advocate for the appellant has quoted a catena of case laws listed earlier. We have gone through each of the cases. We find the facts of the present case are distinguishable as none of these cases cover a general M.B.A. program with content of the program as wide and academic as in the present case. We do not consider it necessary to discuss each of these cases here." 11. It is evident that the term "vocational training institute" included the commercial training or coaching centers which provide vocational coaching or training meant to "impart skills to enable the trainees to seek employment or to have self-employment directly after such training or coaching". The notion of such training institute having been recognized or accredited to nowhere emerges from such a broad definition. The further Notification of 2010 substitutes the existing explanation to the term "vocational training institute" and narrowing it to those institutes affiliated to National Council for Vocational Training offering courses in designated trade in fact supports the assessee. Had the intention been to exempt only such class or category of institutions, the appropriate authority would have designed such a condition in the original Notification of 2003 and Notification No. 10 of 2004 which had been relied upon in this case. 12. For these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal did not fall into error in following its previous ruling in Wigan & Leigh (supra). The question of law framed is accordingly answered against the Revenue and in favour of assessee. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed along with all the pending applications. In view of facts of the present appeal and the above judgments we have no hesitation to hold that the courses run by the Appellant institute clearly fall under the vocational training and are eligible for exemption from service tax in terms of Notification No. 9/2003-S.T, dated 20-6-2003 and24/2004-S.T, dated 10-9-2004. We thus hold that the demand and penalty against the Appellant are not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.