Page 91 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 ] MIND Q. SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-II 305
fees are also not billed separately - No evidence adduced that examination fee
so collected has been paid to some other agency - Deductions as above, not
admissible - Impugned order sustainable on this account - Section 67 of Fi-
nance Act, 1994. [paras 5, 6, 7, 10]
Commercial Training or Coaching services - Exemption under Notifi-
cation No. 24/2004-S.T. - Computer Training Institute - First appellate authority
allowing exemption for period prior to 7-6-2005 on the ground that exception
for computer training institute inserted only on said date in aforesaid notifica-
tion - HELD : Even original notification allowed exemption only to vocational
training institutes and recreational training institutes - Thus, strictly con-
strued, computer training institute was not covered under said notification ab
initio - Therefore proviso introduced subsequently can be construed as redun-
dant as there was no need for creating an exception to a thing not covered in
notification - However, aforesaid view taken by first appellate authority also
cannot be completely ruled out - Settled by Apex Court in 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577
(S.C.) that an exemption notification must be strictly construed and in case of
ambiguity benefit of doubt has to go to Revenue and against assessee - In view
of this, exemption not admissible even prior to 7-6-2005 - Impugned order set
aside to this extent - Sections 65(26) and 65(105)(zzc) of Finance Act, 1994. [paras
7, 8, 9, 10]
Assessee’s appeal rejected/Department’s appeal allowed
CASE CITED
Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar & Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Relied on ............... [Para 9]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, for the Assessee.
Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Authorized Representative, for
the Department.
[Order per : P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (T)]. - These two appeals
are filed by the assessee and the department against the same impugned Order-
in-Appeal No. 89/2010 (H-II) S. Tax, dated 30-11-2010 and hence are being dis-
posed of together.
2. The assessee is challenging the demand of service tax upon them and
penalty imposed equal to the service tax for the period 1-7-2004 to 31-3-2008 in
their appeal ST/636/2011 whereas the department is aggrieved by the first ap-
pellate authority allowing the assessee the benefit of Notification 24/2004-S.T.,
dated 10-9-2004 read with Notification 19/2005-S.T., dated 7-6-2005 for the peri-
od 10-9-2004 to 15-6-2005. According to the department the benefit of this exemp-
tion notification is not available to the assessee.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee herein is imparting
commercial training or coaching services related to software and are registered
with the Central Excise department and are filing periodical returns. Intelligence
was gathered by the department that the assessee is not discharging service tax
properly on the services rendered by them. Accordingly a search was conducted
by the officers of Anti-Evasion, Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate on
13-10-2008 and several documents were recovered. Examination of the docu-
ments, records and corresponding ST-3 returns filed by the assessee showed that
the assessee has not disclosed the full value of the taxable services rendered dur-
ing the period as follows :

GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  211