Page 120 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

206 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
nitely not include the scrap material which is either to be deducted
from the cost of raw material or is to be shown separately under a
different head. We do not see any reason for not accepting the
meaning of the term “turnover” given by a body of Accountants,
which is having a statutory recognition.
17. Thus, as per the law declared by the Supreme Court, turnover
means the aggregate amount for which sales are effected or services rendered by an en-
terprise.
18. Applying the abovesaid principle to the facts of the present case, we
find that the amount of increase in inventory, which the lower authorities have
treated as turnover, is not a sale by the appellant. To the contrary it is only pur-
chase of inventory by the appellant and by no stretch of imagination the same
can be construed as turnover.
19. Once the amount pertaining to “Changes in Inventory of work in
progress” is excluded from turnover, admittedly the amount remaining is less
than Rs. Ten lakhs, and hence the benefit of the exemption is available to the ap-
pellant.
20. In view of above we allow this appeal. We direct the respondents to
grant the refund with interest as per Rules, within 8 weeks from the receipt of
this order.
(Operative part of order pronounced in open Court)
_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 206 (Tri. - Chan.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, CHANDIGARH
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and Raju, Member (T)
HEAVEN VISION

Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-II
Final Order No. A/61022/2019-CU(DB), dated 25-10-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/778/2010-CU-DB
Business Auxiliary Service - Branded services - Exemption therefor -
Commission agent providing services to customers of communication service
provider by way of jumpering at distribution point, pulling wire from pole to
subscribers, in-house wiring and DP, installation of telephone sets, selling of
subscriptions and receiving collections from them - Such services having been
provided by commission agent under his own brand name and not the brand
name of said communication service provider, not to be termed as branded
services so as to disallow Service Tax exemption under Notification No.
6/2005-S.T. - Sections 65(19) and 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 2, 4]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jatinder Mohan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Bhasha Ram, AR, for the Respondent.

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  120