9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The respondent was providing catering services, acting as outdoor caterers in the premises of various customers. The Department collected information that she had provided service to Madhav Institute of Technology & Science, Gwalior (MP) for a gross value of Rs. 7,01,915/- during the period September, 2005 to October, 2006. However, the respondent had not o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005 to March, 2006, she had received an amount of Rs. 3,57,507/- only which is below the limit of Rs. 4 lakhs for the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 (exemption for small units). Similarly, from April 2006 to October, 2006, she submitted that she received only Rs. 2,49,720/- which is also below the exemption limit of Rs. 4 lakhs. She also pointed out that the definitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is payment should be taken into account for calculating the limit of Rs. 4 lakhs. So Revenue contests that the duty liability was correctly confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Revenue has further argued that once she had crossed the exemption limit in 2005-06, she was not eligible for the exemption during the financial year 2006-07. 4. The Counsel for the respondent submits that Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, if such value is received after the service became taxable. Further we do not agree with the contention that non-filing of declaration when the respondent crossed value limit of Rs. 3 lakhs is fatal to the claim of the respondent for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. 7. On the whole Revenue has mechanically raised demands without looking into exemptions available to the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
