9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... updt. (AR) for respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. AGS(12)134/2012 dated 13.01.2012. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration in this case is regarding the demand of service tax from appellant under the category of "Consulting Engineer" service. It is the case of Revenue that during 2009-10, appellant availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant would draw our attention to the factual position and submit that for the year 2009-10 appellant had actually received Rs. 10,50,790/- out of which approximately, Rs. 78,669/- needs to be reduced as services were provided to SEZ unit. If this calculation is taken into consideration, appellant remains within the exemption limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for the year 2009-10 and subsequently no deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeding Rs. 10 lakhs" reads as under:- " (B) aggregate value not exceeding four lakh rupees" means the sum total of first consecutive payments received during a financial year towards the gross amount, as prescribed under section 67 of the said Finance Act, charged by the service provider towards taxable services till the aggregate amount of such payments is equal to four lakh rupees but does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This value of Rs. 78,669/- has been rendered to SEZ unit is undisputed. In our view for the year ended 2009-10 appellant has not exceeded the threshold limit of Rs. 10 lakhs as prescribed under Notification No.6/2005-ST as amended by Notification 8/2008-ST. In view of this the demand raised for the year 2009-10 are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
