2014 (9) TMI 304

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal and stay petition are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AV(5-6)296, 37/2014 dated 8.1.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad. 2. Vide the impugned order, the learned appellate authority has confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 1,02,762/- along with interest thereon and also imposed penalties under the various provisions of the Fin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the appellant during the preceding financial year did not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs. Therefore, during the impugned period, the appellant was eligible for the small scale exemption. This aspect has been completely overlooked by the lower authorities. The learned counsel also relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Surinder Kumar Mittal vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2013(31)STR 12, where .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... otification 1/2006-ST is not considered while computing the exemption and eligibility limits under Notification 6/2005-ST, it would certainly result in taking away the benefit granted under Notification 6/2005. Further, this Tribunal in the case of Surinder Kumar Mittal (supra) has taken a view that both Notifications can be simultaneously availed. In this view of the matter, the appellant has mad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X