2025 (9) TMI 997

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inance Act, 1994, alongwith equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is engaged in 'Embroidery Work' of fabrics which has been provided to the customers as per the demand made by the customers and also on Job Work basis. 3. The Revenue has demanded Service Tax on the basis of income shown in the ITR for the year 2015-16. The demand was subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority who also imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Act. The Appellant challenged the said order of the Adjudicating Authority before the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the demand but waived penalty under Section 77 of the Act. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... simply observed that the Appellant, Momin Husain and M/s Chand Art (name under which bills are issued) are not one and the same person as address of the both indicate some difference in address. The consultant clarified that Momin Husain is proprietor of M/s Chand Art, Lucknow and that there is a minor difference in writing the address of the firm's name 'Chand Art' which has been followed from the days of his forefathers and has not been changed/amended. (c) He also submitted that the Appellant was not registered with the service tax Department under the bona fide belief that he is not liable to pay service tax as his activities were manufacturing activities and covered under Central Excise Tariff Act. 6. The learned Departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ferent than that of Momin Husain of M/s Chand Art. Mr. Momin Husain is also Proprietor of M/s Chand Art, hence the minor difference in individual's address and firm's address need not be confused with. 11. I further find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed that no documentary evidence has been brought on record to establish that appropriate excise duty has been paid on the goods on which the Appellant claims to have performed job work and hence benefit of clause (f) of Section 66D of the Negative list of Finance Act would not be available. 12. I find that activity of embroidery carried out by the Appellant has been held to be manufacturing activity by CBIC vide letter dated 15.07.2011. The said letter clarifies that ....