9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that has rightly been done in adjudication without calling for interference in this appeal. Regarding penalty – Held that:- knowable breach of law made the appellant to suffer adjudication. Accordingly, no immunity from penalty is possible to be granted on the plea of tax compliances made which was found to be a case no payment of tax on the impugned services provided during the relevant period - penalty under Section 78 will meet the ends of justice and hence separate penalty under Section 76 is set aside - appeal is dismissed except for allowing the cum-tax benefit, and setting aside penalty under Section 76. - ST/476/09 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2012 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Mr. D.N. Panda, JJ. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate For the Appellant/s Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR For the Respondent/s Per D.N. Panda Being aggrieved by the order of adjudication dated 30.6.2009 imposing service tax of Rs.1,18,13,760/- for the period 2003 to 2006-07 followed by interest and imposition of penalty of Rs.1,18,13,760/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to the Act) as well as penalty of Rs.100/- per day under Section 76 till 17.4.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... promotion or marketing of service provided to the banks nor to the insurance company and receipt of publicity expenses incurred was towards joint promotion of advertisement which was not liable to service tax. The authority examined the agreement between the appellant and aforesaid banks as well as insurance company along with evidence and modus operandi of the appellant and came to the conclusion that role of the appellant was to promote and market the service provided by the banks as well as insurance company making advertisement for them and providing them infrastructure facility at the door step of dealers and Authorised Service Centres of the appellant as well as to connect the identified customers to the business chain of the banks and insurance company. He noticed that buyers of vehicles were the beneficiaries of single window service provided by banks and insurance company using the input service provided by appellant. 4. Arguing the appeal, ld. Counsel submits that there was no liability incurred by the appellant since banks and insurance company were doing their own business under an agreement with the appellant. It had also not promoted the business of insurance comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. on 9.5.2003 (Ref. page 29-46 of Vol I of Paper Book). Revenue examined the MOU between these two parties and found that the understanding of the parties was in the same line as that of ICICI Bank with the appellant. Common methodology followed by the appellant to promote and market service of these banks was extending infrastructural facility at the doorstep of its dealers and authorized service centres to promote such activity. 8. Revenue also thoroughly examined the agreement dt. 22.3.2004 entered into by the appellant with M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Ref. pages 59-71 and 72-83 of Vol-I of the Paper Book). That indicated that the appellant through identification process of prospective buyers promoted marketing of insurance service by the said insurance company. The vehicles sold by the appellants were insured by Oriental insurance and expeditious settlement of the claims, if any, made by the customers were agreed to be attended by that insurance company in terms of such agreement. Such a facility was also provided at the doorstep of dealers and authorized service centres of appellant providing infrastructural facility bringing live link between the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004 made by the appellant with Oriental Insurance Co. brought out their association at page 60 of the Vol-I of paper book. The purpose of the MoU was to identify customers by the appellant for insurance company. The appellant made available of infrastructural facility by its dealers and authorized service stations to the insurance agents to serve the identified customers as per para 7 of the Agreement. Software with hardware facility was provided by the insurance company for issuance of the new/renewal of the policy (Para 3.21 of the Vol I of the paper book) by the appellant. In terms of para-6 of the agreement, the appellant was permitted to use the logo and name of the insurance company in the advertisement in the print media, banners, displays in the sales campaign, souvenirs, sponsorships etc. The cost of advertisement of appellant was shared between the appellant and the insurance company according to the approval of the Publicity Committee of the insurance company. The share of cost of advertisement of appellant to the tune of 5% of the premium of 12 months in respect of policy issued or renewed under conditions of IRDA was borne by the insurance company. In terms of para 8 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
