9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad has challenged the order dated 11th August, 2009 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, (the Tribunal) proposing the following question:- Where the Tribunal was right in holding that the Notification No.6/05-ST, dated 01.03.2005 was applicable in the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority demanding service tax along with interest and penalties. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed. 3. Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned senior standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant has reiterated the grounds stated in the memo of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said notification and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. 5. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, before the Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the revenue that since the plea as regards availability of the above notification was not taken before the original adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in extending the benefit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue not exceeding four lakh rupees in any financial year from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the Finance Act. In the present case, admittedly the aggregate value of taxable services in the whole of the financial year is below ₹ 4,00,000/-. In the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal in holding that merely because the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Tribunal, it is not permissible for the appellant to take such a plea for the first time before this Court, more so, since the same would also involve disputed questions of fact. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is not possible to state that the impugned order gives rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
