AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (H-II) S.Tax dated 30.11.2010 and hence are being disposed 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 01.07.2004 to 31.03.2008 in their appeal ST/636/2011 whereas the department is aggrieved by the first appellate authority allowing the assessee the benefit of notification 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 read with notification 19/2005- ST dated 07.06.2005 for the period 10.09.2004 to 15.06.2005. According to the department the benefit of this exemption 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 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined that they have not paid tax on amounts received from the students towards supply of materials on the ground that the same are exempted and therefore they have not discharged service tax on the full value. He also paid an amount of Rs. 4,99,999/- during the investigation on 04.11.2008 towards service tax on the value not shown in their returns and agreed to work out the differential service tax and pay the same along with interest. Further examination of the records showed that the explanation of the assessee that they claimed exemption for the value of study materials appeared incorrect because they were raising a single invoice on the students for the services rendered and the amount collected is a composite amount for training and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. After hearing both sides, we find that assessee has not discharged the service tax on the entire amount collected by them from the students under "Commercial Coaching and Training Services" claiming the following as exempted there from. (1) Sale of books (2) Registration fee (3) Examination fee for examinations conducted by Indian Testing Board. 6. It is not in dispute that the sale of books is not a separate enterprise by the assessee. These books are supplied to the students as study materials. They are not priced separately. There is no separate invoice raised upon the students for the sale of books. The cost of the books is also part of the total cost of training rendered by the assessee. Similarly, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04 read with notification 19/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005. This notification reads as follows: "Exemption to vocational/recreational training institute for providing commercial training or coaching services Notification No. 24/2004 ST Dated 10-9-2004 [As amended by Notification No. 19/2005 ST dated 07-06-2005] In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable services provided in relation to commercial training or coaching, by, - (a) a vocational training institute; or (b) a recreational training institute, to any person,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the exemption was available only to (a) vocational training institute or (b) a recreational training institute. There was no exemption notification for computer training institutes at all. Therefore, the proviso which was introduced was nothing more than an explanation introduced vide notification 19/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005. To buttress their argument learned departmental representative also draws the attention of the bench to notification 09/2003 which was in existence prior to notification 24/2004. This notification exempted services provided in relation to commercial training or coaching by (a) vocational training institute, (b) a computer training institute or (c) a recreational training institute. Subsequent notification 24/2004....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e benefit of this exemption notification is redundant because computer training institutes were not covered at all in the notification. The other way of looking at it is to view the proviso as having made an exception to the notification with effect from 07.06.2005 when it was introduced. We, therefore, find that both views are possible in reading the exemption notification 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 prior to 07.06.2005. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip Kumar & Co. and others (Civil Appeal No. 3327/2007) 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 insertin....