9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved is of interpretation of law, the penalties are not justified. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Roshan Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut- (2008 -TMI - 31834 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) - no imposition of penalties by both the authorities below was justified. - ST/425 of 2011-SM - - - Dated:- 19-10-2011 - Mrs.Archana Wadhwa, J. Present for the Appellant: Ms.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and the appellants are liable to service tax in respect of the same. 3. The respondents before issuance of show cause notice dated 18.10.09 have deposited service tax of Rs.1,97,746/- alongwith interest of Rs.1,06,251/-. While adjudicating the show cause notice, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and appropriated the same from the deposit already made by the assessee. As regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty upon them by the adjudicating authority was proper. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 5. After hearing both sides, I find that the issue is no more res integra. As regards merits, it stands held in various decisions of the Tribunal that such arrangement of loans by the authorized dealers amount to providing of services under the category of business auxiliary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de." 6. By applying the ratio of the above decision, I find that no imposition of penalties by both the authorities below was justified. Accordingly, Revenue's appeal is rejected. 7. The respondents have also filed cross objection seeking refund of deposit already made by them. However, as I find that the respondents had deposited the duty amount as also interest before the issuance of show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
