2013 (12) TMI 1281 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Order Dismissing Revenue's Appeal

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus JYTSNA SINGH

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and disposing of the Respondent's cross objection. It emphasized the ... Small scale exemption - Amount received less than the limit prescribed – Entitlement for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 – Held that:- There was no merit in the argument that value of services rendered when the service was not taxable should be included in the aggregate value of clearance, if such value is received after the service became taxable - the contention that non-filing of declaration when the assessee crossed value limit of Rs. 3 lakhs is fatal to the claim of the respondent for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 cannot be accepted - Revenue has mechanically raised demands without looking into exemptions available to the assessee – also the assessee was a small service provider, the Department was duty bound to provide proper guidance – Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Tax liability for catering services provided without service tax registration.2. Applicability of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T.3. Correct computation of tax liability and consideration of abatement.4. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2004-S.T.Issue 1: Tax liability for catering services provided without service tax registrationThe respondent provided catering services without obtaining service tax registration and not paying the service tax. A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent did not respond to the notice, leading to the adjudicating authority confirming the tax amount and imposing a penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.Issue 2: Applicability of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T.The respondent contended that the amount received for catering services during specific periods was below the exemption limit of Rs. 4 lakhs as per Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this argument, granting consequential relief to the respondent based on the exemption criteria.Issue 3: Correct computation of tax liability and consideration of abatementThe Revenue contested that the First Appellate Authority wrongly applied the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. They argued that the tax liability was correctly confirmed by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the timing of payments and the exemption limit. The respondent's counsel raised the issue of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T., which was not considered by the lower authorities.Issue 4: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2004-S.T.The respondent claimed eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2004-S.T. until its rescission on 1-3-2006. The Tribunal did not find merit in including the value of services rendered when they were not taxable in the aggregate value of clearance, post-taxability. They also disagreed that non-filing of a declaration upon crossing the value limit of Rs. 3 lakhs affected the exemption claim under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue and disposing of the cross objection filed by the Respondent. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue had mechanically raised demands without considering available exemptions for the respondent, emphasizing the duty of the Department to provide proper guidance to small service providers.