TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The information input provided a copy of a invoice/bill bearing no. 37 dated 20.10.2011 of Rs.9,00,000/- issued by M/s. Payal Marriage Palace to Mr. Iqbal Singh, Bilaspur. Based on said input, the premises of appellant were searched and bill books have been resumed as per Annexure 'A' to the Panchnama dated 11.04.2016. After recording the statements of proprietor of appellant namely Shri Ved Prakash and of Mr. Iqbal Singh to whom bill of Rs. 9 lakhs was raised, it appeared to the department that appellants have not paid service tax amount of Rs.7,46,482/- during the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2015 under "Mandap Keeper" service classifiable under Section 65(105)(m) of the Finance Act, 1994 and thus have cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at both Income Tax Return and Profit & Loss Account for the Financial Year in dispute were produced by the appellant which shows that the income of appellant has always been below the threshold limit of Rs. 10 Lakhs. Thus, the appellant, otherwise, was exempted from payment of service tax as well as from taking service tax registration in terms of Notification No. 33/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 and hence no question arises to file periodical returns ST-3. 4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that demand on full value of Rs.9,00,000/- shown in the said bill, was confirmed without allowing abatement. The document was the photocopy of bill of the said amount. The appellant was not even without allowed cross examination of Mr. Iqbal Sing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, Raipur Vs. M/s. Nutan Ispat & Power Ltd., Shri S.V.S. Sarma, Shri Pradeep Kumar Agrawal and M/s. Indo Lahari Bio Power Ltd. reported as 2024 (1) TMI 672 - CESTAT New Delhi (ii) Surya Vikash Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Panchkula reported as 2017 (12) TMI 666 - CESTAT Chandigarh (iii) C.C.E., Faridabad - II Vs. Equipment Conductors and Cables Ltd. (iv) Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Durgapur reported as 2021 (378) ELT 674 (Tri.-Kolkata) With these submissions, the impugned order is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has reiterated the findings in the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original was not produced. The contention of appellant is that in lieu of said Bill No. 3, appellant received only Rs.1,00,000/-. Department has not produced any evidence proving receipt of remaining Rs.8 Lakhs by the appellant. The findings that appellant received the amount of bill are without any evidence and thus are held to be the result of presumption. 6.3 Otherwise also, as the appellant is an individual firm having turnover less than Rs. 50 Lakhs per annum and therefore as per Rule 6 of service tax they were required to pay service tax on receipt of payment basis. So, even if the above bill is presumed to have been issued by the appellant and payment amount of Rs.1,00,000/- received is added in the turnover of 2011-12 the total t....