TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20106/2016-DB, ST/20107/2016-DB, ST/20108/2016-DB, ST/20174/2016-DB, ST/20321/2016-DB - Final Order No. 20956-20960/2018 - Dated:- 6-7-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Rajith Davis Attathara, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Asst, Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellants have filed these 5 appeals against different impugned orders passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax on the services rendered by the appellants in relation to chit funds during different period. The issue involved in all the 5 appeals is identical. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under VCES-1 dt. 04/12/2013 and had declared service tax dues of ₹ 1,24,583/- under sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the VCES Act for the period April 2012 to December 2012, availing the threshold exemption provided under Notification No.6/2005 as amended. However, as the foreman commission received for the preceding year 2011-12, exceeded ₹ 10 lakhs, it appeared that they were not eligible for the small service provider exemption of ₹ 10 lakhs under Notification No.6/2005 dt. 01/03/2005 are amended for the succeeding financial year of 2012-13. Therefore, it appeared that the assessee had mis-declared his tax liability for a gross amount of ₹ 14,50,313/- as against the actual gross value of ₹ 24,50,313/- for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r following the due process, confirmed the demand and hence the present appeals. 4. Heard both sides and perused records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable as the same are contrary to the binding judicial precedents. He submitted that the issue involved in the present appeals is no more rest integra and has been settled by the apex court in the case of UOI and other Vs. Margadarshi Chit Funds (P) Ltd. etc. [Judgment dt. 04/07/2017 in Civil appeal N09s).5724-5725/2011. He further submitted that the Hon'ble apex court in the judgment cited supra has held that the chit funds business was not covered by sub-clause (v) of sub-section 12 of Section 65 even after its amendment by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
