9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Chitkara for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Appellant is providing security agency service and service tax demand for Rs. 50,405 with interest as applicable for the period from 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2005 has been confirmed and penalties have been imposed under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellant is not contesting the demand f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submits that the appellant did not deposit the service tax only because he was not aware of the provisions and it was a one man show run from his own house and he had not collected the service tax from the customers. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Khodiyar Security Guard Training & Supplying Services v. CCE [2009] 19 STT 200 (Ahd. - CESTAT). At this stage learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi - CESTAT). It is his submission that for the purpose of penalty the fact that there were different opinions as to whether an individual can be considered as a commercial concern existed. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. From the quantum of service tax demanded, it is quite clear that the firm is a very small concern. Further, the appellant willingly paid service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
