9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded to original adjudicating authority - ST/488/2011 - ST/A/248/12-CUS. - Dated:- 16-3-2012 - MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MATHEW JOHN, JJ. B.L. Soni for the Respondent. ORDER Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member The applicants have filed written submissions and have made a prayer to decide the issue on merits. Accordingly, we have heard ld. A.R. 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 of identical amount. The said confirmation of tax is on the ground that during the financial year 2006-07, the appellants have received commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the services provided by the appellant during the preceding financial year was less than Rs.4 lakhs. For better appreciation, we reproduce paras 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 periodical ST-3 Returns. The appellants have contended that this differential amount, which as per the department is commission is the gros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 from the original field officer. Inasmuch as the said disputes relate to verification of the factual position, which can be done only at an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
