Page 95 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 ] TATA PROJECTS LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD 309
or to 7-6-2005. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip
Kumar & Co. and others [Civil Appeal No. 3327/2007 = 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)]
an exemption notification must be strictly construed and in case of ambiguity the
benefit of doubt has to go to the Revenue and against the assessee. This is a case
of glaring ambiguity created by inserting a proviso excluding the category which
was not covered at all in the notification in the first place. We have no choice but
to follow the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in interpreting this notification and hold that the assessee is not entitled to
the benefit of Notification 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 for the period prior to 7-
6-2005 also because the computer training institutes were not covered by the no-
tification. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in extending the
benefit of this notification to the assessee.
10. In view of the above, we find that the assessee is not entitled to de-
ductions on account of sale of books, registration fee, examination fee, etc., be-
cause no amounts were collected under these heads and gross amount for total
services rendered were invoiced to the students by the assessee. Service tax is
leviable on the gross amount charged. Assessee is also not entitled to the benefit
of exemption Notification 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 for the period prior to
7-6-2005 because they were not clearly covered by the exemption notification. In
view of the above, the department’s appeal is liable to be allowed and the as-
sessee’s appeal is liable to be rejected and we do so.
11. The assessee’s appeal is rejected and the department’s appeal is al-
lowed.
(Pronounced in the Open Court on 11-7-2019)

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 309 (Tri. - Hyd.)

IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, HYDERABAD
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
TATA PROJECTS LIMITED
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD
Final Order No. A/30216/2019, dated 6-2-2019 in Appeal No. ST/22341/2015
Valuation (Service Tax) - Works contract services - Value of goods
need not be included in the value of works contract services as the contracts
were signed/payments were made prior to the amendment of Notification No.
23/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 and out of 14 projects, 13 projects were executed
prior to 7-7-2009 - Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 3, 4]
Appeal allowed
CASE CITED
Final Order No. A/30112/2019, dated 9-1-2019 by CESTAT, Hyderabad — Relied on .................. [Para 2]

GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  215