9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness Auxiliary Service”, they would still be not liable to pay any service tax in terms of Notification No.6/2005-ST. While dealing with the above contention of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has submitted that the plea of availability of notification was not taken by the assessee before the original adjudicating authority, and as such, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified extending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or better appreciation of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), we reproduce Para 6 of the impugned order. "6. I find that the appellants have paid the service tax before issuance of show cause notice and therefore I waive the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to decide the appeal finally. So far as the contention of the appellants on the taxability of the services they rendered i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department comes to Rs.1,98,543/- which is below Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence, the appellants are eligible to get the exemption under Notification No.6/2005-ST dt.1.3.05. Had they availed the opportunities of personal hearing before adjudicating authority and brought such facts before the adjudicating authority, the matter could have solved there only. 3. Revenue in their memo of appeal have contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed for the first time even at appeal stage. It is not the Revenue's case that the benefit of notification is otherwise not available to the assessee. Merely because the assessee did not claim the same before the original adjudicating authority and raised the issue for the first time before Commissioner (Appeals), cannot be held to be a ground of denying the benefit of the notification, if the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
