9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. ORDER Heard the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue, as none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. The notice issued to the respondent received back with postal remarks that the respondent has moved from the given address. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to the respondent demanding Service Tax amount of Rs. 32,00,857/- interest and also for imposition of penalties on the ground that the registration fees collected was not declared in the ST-3 returns filed by the respondent. The registration fee formed part of correct value of the taxable service in terms of the provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the said amount is to be added to the value of taxable service provided by the respondent. 6. In respect of the time bar the contention of the Revenue is that the registration fee collected from the client was never declared to the department nor reflected in the ST-3 returns filed by the respondent. It is only when the matter was examined it had come to the notice that the respondents ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue is whether the registration fee charged from their clients are to be added to the value of taxable service on which the respondents are liable to pay Service Tax. The registration fee is not refundable as such. The registration fee will be adjusted to the first purchase made by the clients in case no purchase is made the registration fee is not to be refunded. In view of this, the registrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
