9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onest tax payer, he opted to pay service tax on the commission received by him and applied for service tax registration and, therefore, he paid the service tax - no question to opt to go out of exemption limit as per the said Notification - condition 2(1) of the said Notification is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case - order set aside and the refund claim allowed - ST/263/2009 - A/528/2010-WZB/C-IV/(SMB) - Dated:- 29-9-2010 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellant. Shri V.K. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 as amende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord and considered. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the appellant has not opted for the exemption under the above said Notification and paid the tax accordingly and as per condition 2(1) of the said Notification, the appellant is not entitled for the exemption and hence the refund claim has been rightly rejected. To support his contention, he placed reliance on L.G. Marwadi v. CCE, Pune-III reported in 2010 (19) S.T.R. 279 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. Heard and considered. 5. In this case, the appellant received a commission of Rs. 20 lakhs on 12-8-2007 and the appellant got registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of real estate agent on 20-11-2007. It is also a fact that the appellant did not recover any ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 8 lakhs as per the above said Notification. Accordingly, condition 2(1) is not applicable to the case of the appellant and the case law relied upon by the DR is not relevant to the facts of this case as in the case of L.G. Marwadi, the appellant had paid service tax for the first half of the year and in second half surrendered the registration certificate and sought the exemption as per the Notification for the earlier period, which are not the facts in this case. So, the case law relied upon by the DR is not relevant to this case. 6. In this case the appellant had done only one transaction of receiving commission of Rs. 20 lakhs on 12-8-2007 and it is also a fact that no service tax has been received by the appellant. Although the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
