w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Choudhary Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I

    Final Order No. ST/A/56476/2017-CU(DB) in Appeal No. ST/3293/2012-CU(DB)

    Decided On, 30 May 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, MEMBER

    For Respondents: Amresh Jain, DR

Judgment Text

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23-7-2012 passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals-I), Jaipur, wherein exemption claimed by the appellant under Notification No. 4/2007-S.T., dated 1-2-2007 was denied, holding that the option to avail the exemption cannot be exercised in the middle of the Financial year, where the appellant had already opted for payment of Service Tax from beginning of the Financial year. None appeared for the appellant, despite notice. Heard the ld. DR for Revenue.

2. In this case the appellant is a small scale service provider and opted for the exemption provided under Notification No. 16/2005-S.T.1, dated 1-3-2005 as amended by Notification No. 4/2007-S.T., dated 1-2-20072. 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 financial year i.e. July, 2007 to March, 2008, it had opted for the benefit of exemption provided under the said notification. The notification dated 1-2-20072 in clear and unambiguous terms provides that the provider of taxable service has the option not to avail the exemption and pay Service Tax on the taxable services provided by him and such option, once exercised in a financial year, shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of such financial year. In this case, since the appellant had opted for payment of Service Tax at the beginning of the financial year, as per the mandates of the said notification, it cannot change the option during the middle of the financial year, opting for th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e benefit provided under the said notification. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.