2010 (8) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y contradicted by their own act of raising bills for the service tax which apparently stands paid to them - submission of the learned advocate that in the absence of specific offer in the order of the original authority and in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding option to pay concessional penalty in terms of first proviso to Section 11AC, the same should be extended is to be accepted in the light of decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of K.P. Pouches cited supra - penalties sustained by Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 77 and Section 78 are upheld - appeal is disposed of
Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.P. Singh, SDR, for the Res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rding the scope of services of commission agent and whether such services are liable to service tax under the head "business auxiliary services". Therefore, they were under bona fide belief that no service tax was payable by them. However, they as a precaution had raised the bills for collecting the service tax in March, 2007 itself. Therefore, he submits that no penalty should be sustained under Section 78. He relies on the following decisions :- (1) Final Order No. 192/2010-SM(BR), dated 1-2-2010 in S.T. Appeal No. 713/2009 [2010 (18) S.T.R. 613 (Tribunal)] in the case of Chintamani Jaiswal v. CCE, Allahabad. (2) Tidewater Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 475 (Tri.-Bang.); and (3) Dixon Electronics v. CCE, Chandi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le to pay service tax is clearly contradicted by their own act of raising bills for the service tax which apparently stands paid to them. In other words, the appellants have collected the service tax earlier but choosen to register themselves for providing the services of business auxiliary only on 12-5-08. The appellants have registered themselves as service provider under other category but have not furnished details of the service charges received by them as commission on agent and service tax collected by them. Therefore, the penalty under Section 78 is justified. 7. However, the submission of the learned advocate that in the absence of specific offer in the order of the original authority and in the order of the Commissioner (Ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X