9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by him (Commissioner (Appeals)) from the original field officer - set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision, after verifying the facts - ST Appeal No. 488 of 2011 - ST/A/248/12-Cus - Dated:- 16-3-2012 - Archana Wadhwa, Shri Mathew John, JJ. For Respondent: Shri B L Soni, A.R Per: Archana Wadhwa: The applicants have filed written submissions and have made a prayer to decide the issue on merits. Accordingly, we have heard ld. AR and have gone through the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. It is seen that service tax of Rs.63,000/- stands confirmed against the appellant along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of notification. However, he has gone ahead and denied the benefit on the ground that it is not established from records that the total value of the services provided by the appellant during the preceding financial year was less than Rs.4 lakhs. For better appreciation, we reproduce para-5 and 5.2 from the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). "5 I have carefully gone through the appeal papers and submissions made by the appellants. It is observed that in the present appeal case, the demand of service tax has been confirmed against the appellants on the difference of taxable value received from Cell phone Companies, as per details received from various Cell Phone Companies and the figures of the taxable service declared in their pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice during the preceding financial year (2005-06) was below Rs.4 lakhs, which is the basic criteria for availing exemption under the said notification. In the absence of any evidence that the value of taxable service provided during the preceding year was below Rs.4 lakhs, the benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005 is not admissible to the appellant." 5. We find that both the grounds adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) for denial of benefit relates to the factual position. As such, instead of assuming that the differential amount was not on account of sale/purchase of mobiles and that the total clearance value during the preceding financial year was more than Rs.4 lakhs, the said facts should have been got verified by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
