2014 (1) TMI 203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ffect from 01.05.2006. Appellant started paying Service Tax after availing the admissible value based exemption. Even services rendered prior to 01.05.2008 and amount received after 01.05.2006 was not required to be charged to Service Tax. Under the above facts and circumstances, no suppression or mis-statement with intention to evade payment of Service Tax can be attributed on the part of the appellant - Therefore, extended period of five years cannot be invoked - Decided in favour of assessee.
MR. H.K. THAKUR, J. For the Appellant : Shri J.C. Patel, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri P.N. Sarvaiya, Astt. Commissioner (A.R.) JUDGEMENT Per: H.K. Thakur 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 380/2010(STC)/MM/Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R 479 (Tri-Ahmd) b) Mangal Singh Vs CCE Jaipur-I 2008 (11) STR 17 (Tri-Del) c) Infinity Credit Vs. CCE Jaipur 2009 (16) STR 61 (Tri-Del) 2.1 It was further argued by the Advocate that in view of various judicial pronouncements and clarifications issued by CBEC, there was no conflict that Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service is not required to be paid by the proprietary concerns. That only under judgments delivered by CESTAT, in the case of CCE Jaipur Vs R.S. Financial Services [2008 (9) STR 231 (Tri-Del)] and Infinity Credit Vs. CCE Jaipur [2009 (16) STR 61 (Tri-Del)], it was held that the individual providing services can also be considered as commercial concern. It was, thus argued by the Advocate of the appellant that as the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Act, 1994 was substituted with the word 'Any person' with effect from 01.05.2006. Appellant started paying Service Tax after availing the admissible value based exemption. Even services rendered prior to 01.05.2008 and amount received after 01.05.2006 was not required to be charged to Service Tax. Under the above facts and circumstances, no suppression or mis-statement with intention to evade payment of Service Tax can be attributed on the part of the appellant. Under similar circumstances, it has been held by CESTAT and Gujarat High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd Vs CCE Allahabad (supra), Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE Surat-I (supra) and CCE Surat-I Vs. Garden Silk Mills (supra) that the extended period cannot be invoked. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X