9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gi, Advocate for Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt (AR), Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. 193/ST/Alld/2011 dated 26/12/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Allahabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were providing vehicle to M/s UPSRTC. Revenue collected informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y any service tax. The issue was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 28.04.2011 wherein the original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 92,705/- and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has examined Explanation "B" of Notification No.6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 and held that while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of consideration received towards providing service which are exempt from whole of service tax leviable thereon. On perusal of the said Notifications No.9/2004 and No.1/2006-ST, we find that 60% of the consideration received is exempted from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon. Therefore, we find that for the purpose of calculation of aggregate value as per said explanation "B" 60% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
