2013 (3) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... only) per day, we proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides, as the issue lies in the narrow compass. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in providing taxable services under the category of Business Auxiliary Services and Renting of Immovable Property Services. During the course of review of Business Auxiliary Service by CERA audit party, it was noticed that the appellants had declared less value shown in their Profit & Loss periodical ST-3 returns as compared to the value shown in their Profit & Loss account for the year 2005-06 resulting into a short payment of Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 1,02,378/- (Rupees One Lakh, Two Thousands, Three Hundreds and Seventy Eight Only). Acc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in Para 12 of order-in-original, however, the same has not been rebutted nor any contrary evidence brought on record by the Department and that they are not required to pay any Service Tax in the subject matter; that since the export services are exempted from payment of Service Tax, the department has no authority to demand the tax on such services and in support of their contention, they have relied upon various judgments; that the tax has been worked out and demanded without giving any details of value on which tax is demanded and further the tax has been demanded on the differential value between the amount shown in the S.T.-3 Return and Profit & Loss account for the year 2005-2006. However, there is nothing in the findings of the or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , they have produced a worksheet showing payment of Service Tax on the commission income in the year 2005-2006. This, according to the Commissioner, is contradictory stand. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reasoning that the commission has not been separately shown in Profit & Loss account, cannot be held to be a valid reason to reject the appellant's plea of the commission having been earned from the services provided by them to a foreign client. It is seen that the appellants had produced documentary evidences showing services provided to foreign company and receiving the payment in foreign currency. The said plea of the appellant has not been rebutted by the Revenue. As such, the non-reflection of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X