9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) M/s Exxcon Sales (ES) (iv) M/s Somochi Corporation (SC) (v) M/s Competent Marketing & Sales Promoters (CMSP) 2. The brief facts of the case are that the departmental officers carried out, search proceedings on 09.08.2007 at the business premises of MC. Shri Mahendra Jain was the proprietor of MC. The records seized included that for all the five firms as above. These firms were engaged in providing services to various manufacturers of medicines by way of procuring orders from Rajasthan Government. They also provided related services such as arranging supplies and collecting payments. For such activities, the five firms received commissions from the manufacturers of medicines. Department was of the view that the activities carried ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea to reinstate the Order-in-Original. Further, it has been contended that penalties are also liable to be imposed. 4. Appeals also have been filed by four of the five entities challenging the levy of Service Tax on that. All the appeals are being disposed of through this common order. 5. In this connection, we heard Shri Sanjay Jain, learned DR for Revenue as well as Ms. Rinky Arora, learned Advocate for the Assessees. 6. During the course of the said proceedings at the business premises of M/s MC, proprietor Shri Mahender Jain, the departmental officers of M/s MC recovered documents pertaining to all the five units. The investigation conducted sought to establish that Shri Mahender Jain was the de-facto owner of all the five firms, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the activities are looked after by the husband and authorized by his wife. 9. Revenue has challenged such findings. It is their argument that the nature of work of all the other firms was similar to that of M/s MC, and they are being run from the same premises under the guidance of and control of Shri Mahender Jain. Consequently, they have argued that the benefit of 6/2005 - ST notification is to be denied to all other firms including M/s ES. 10. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both sides. The benefit of Notification No. 6/2005 is available to small service providers whose turnover is within the threshold specified in the Notification. In the present case, we find that all the five firms have their independent exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
