9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant and is a proprietary concern who is engaged in providing management and financial services after retirement from service. He rendered the services to three clients during the year 2006 but there is no dispute with regard to Service Tax in reference to Syndicate Bank and Bg SE Financial Ltd. The dispute in the present case only relates to Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd. (SKPCL) which engaged the appellant as a financial advisor for a specified assignment and the letter of engagement dated 10th April, 2006 states that the appellant shall be paid a professional fees of Rs. 55,000/- per month inclusive of all taxes and duties from the date of joining of his service subject to deduction of tax at source and other statutory deductions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax and that they have an option to avail the small scale exemption at any time of the year. He further submitted that the adhoc amounts paid by him are advance deposit as an abundant caution and not payment of Service Tax, as observed by both the authorities. He further submitted that the benefit of threshold limit is to help the small scale service providers and through erroneous interpretation cannot be denied to the genuine small scale service providers. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has laid more emphasis on the Notification No. 6/2005 and the mistaken presumption that Service Tax is deemed to have been collected separately. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this condition has been violated by the appellant and therefore, the Commissioner (A) has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to the refund amount of 24,614/-. Further, we find that in the case of Choudhary Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory cited supra, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in paragraph 3 and 4 has held as under: "3. In this case the appellant is a small scale service provider and opted for the exemption provided under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 as amended by Notification No. 4/2007-ST dated 01.02.2007. However, the appellant opted to pay the Service Tax on the taxable service during the period April, 2007 to June, 2007. However, for the subsequent period in the same fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
