9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tt. Commr. (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: Anil Choudhary: The appellant is a small service provider engaged in providing maintenance and repair services and had subsequently registered for providing construction services. The appellant was registered w.e.f. 29.11.2004 for maintenance and repair services. 2. The brief facts of the case are that for the financial year 2005-06, the appellant entered into an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 5,84,161/- which is apparently below the exemption limit of Rs. 8 lakhs as then applicable and it is further stated by the appellant that Service Tax of Rs. 72,202/- was paid on 1.1.2009 after issue of show-cause notice, under compulsion and also Service Tax for the earlier period 2005-06 amounting to Rs. 44,080/- was also paid under compulsion after issue of show-cause notice. 2.1 A show-cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also penalty under Section 78 equal to the Service Tax confirmed. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant carried the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order dated 17.1.2011 dropped the demand for the period prior to 16.6.2005 and upheld the balance demand for the subsequent period along with imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the Order-in-Original/impugned demands in full and allow the refund denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order. 4. The learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order and further states that as the appellant opted to pay Service Tax for the period 16.6.2005 onwards, the appellant is not entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary, 2009 which cannot be called payment suo motu and the same be treated under the protest or compulsion. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances and in law, it is held that the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax for the financial year 2005-06 and 2007-08. It is further held that there is no violation of provision of Act or Rules on the part of the appellant and thus the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
