TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 737
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considering the observations made in the stay order dated 30-1-2008 [2008 (11) S.T.R. 74 (Tri. - Del.)] since the appellant has already complied with the condition of stay order. 3. The appellant had rented out one Maruti Van to M/s. IFFCO, Phulpur during the period October, 2000 to September 2005 on rental services for value amounting to Rs. 12,77,147/- but the appellant had not got himself registered under the service tax laws and had not paid any service tax. A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax amount of Rs. 89,652/-. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority under provision of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further penalty under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods used for providing the services. The appellant further submits that the value received by him has to be treated as cum-tax value and if these principles are adopted, the service tax liability will come down substantially. 6. The appellant submits that he was under the bona fide belief that he was not required to pay service tax on account of exemption granted under Notification No. 3/99-S.T., dated 28-2-1999. He submits that he had reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax and not-submitting of returns. He should be given the benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act under which penalties can be waived. 7. The learned DR on the other hand submits that taxability of the services provided by the appellant is no long....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... denied to the appellant. We also note that there is no chance of the appellant having availed benefit of Notification No. 12/03 dated 26-6-2003 for goods sold while providing the service. For this reason, we hold that the appellant is eligible for Notification No. 9/2004-S.T., dated 9-7-2004. 9. Further in the case of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., we find that the entire data to determine whether the appellant had provided services more than the prescribed limit of Rs. 4 lakhs is available with the department and the same should be verified and exemption extended. In the matter of cum-duty benefit, the fact that the amount realized by the appellant is cum duty is not disputed by the Revenue. The objection raised is th....