9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belief regarding the non taxability of their service till 31.03.2006. Though the appellant have obtained the registration on 19.09.2006, the department has initiated action and record statement on 30.05.2007. Though the lower authority have not considered the notification as the same was not argued before them - There is no suppression of fact or malafide intention on the part of the appellant - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid Service Tax from April, 2006 onwards. An SCN was issued, demanding Service Tax for captioned period on the service of Commission Agent which was culminated into the adjudication order, whereby demand was confirmed. An appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals), was rejected, therefore, the present appeal. 2. Shri. Nirav Shah, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Concern to A person w.e.f 01.05.2006 thereafter, the appellant has started the payment of Service Tax, therefore, the appellant had a bonafide belief regarding non taxability of service. He submits that the appellant Suo-moto taken the registration of 19.09.2006 and started paying the Service Tax from 01.05.2006., therefore, there is no suppression of fact. Accordingly, the entire demand is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 412 (TRI. CHENNAI) WOOD BRIDGE TEA FACTORY-2010 (19) STR 413 (TRI. CHENNAI) PETRON ENGG. CONSTRUCTION LTD.-2009 (243) ELT 272 (TRI. BANG.) ANKESHWAR TALUKA ONGC LAND LOOSERS TRAVELLES CO. OP.-2013 (29) STR 352 (GUJ.) 3. Shri. T.K. Sikdar, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Though the lower authority have not considered the notification as the same was not argued before them. However, even the eligibility of the Notification No. 14/2004-ST also a debatable issue specifically with regard to the present appellant. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances, we are of the view that there is no suppression of fact or malafide intention on the part of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
