9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER Per Anil Choudhary None present for the Appellant, nor any request for adjournment. Accordingly, we have heard the ld.A.R. for the Revenue. 2. The Appellant, M/s M. K. Pandey & Associates, is in Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 90/ST/Alld/2010 dated 29.09.2010 passed by Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad. 3. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is a Chartered Accountan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued stating therein that as per the provisions of Section 69 read with Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the appellant was required to make an application for registration with the Central Excise Department within 30 days of such service being brought into service tax net, which the appellant failed to do so, as they applied for the said registration only on 09.11.2004. However, the appellant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not receive any payments against bill till 31.03.2005 and further, they had refunded the service tax to the service receiver i.e. M/s CATJEE and also produced copy of the Ledger A/c by way of evidence. The show-cause notice was adjudicated observing that threshold exemption has been granted since April, 2005 and no such exemption was available when the bill was raised and accordingly, proposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.03.2005,, wherein it is mentioned under Para 3B that receipts for the purposes of Notification, have to be taken as aggregate value of payment receipts consecutively in any financial year. In view of this admitted fact that there is no receipt during the financial year 2004-2005 and the aggregate receipt in the financial year, 2005-06, is below the threshold limit, accordingly, we allow the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
