Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (2) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aw, this is a fit case for for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Though the appellant have not disputed their service tax liability, it would not be correct to impose penalty under Sections 76 and 78, as this is possible that the total turnover of their taxable services in respect of customer care may be within the exemption limit – Penalty imposed was set aside – In favour of the assessee. - ST/20/2011-SM(BR) - 879/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 16-11-2011 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri D.P. Ojha, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Verma, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellant as per terms of their agreement with M/s. Tata Tele Services Ltd. were providing certain services for th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l for the appellant pleaded that the entire service tax liability along with interest had been discharged by the appellant as soon as the same had been pointed out and this was done before the issue of show cause notice, that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant, that the appellant is small scale service provider, who were not aware of the provisions of service tax and failure to discharge the tax liability took place only during one year due to financial difficulties. He, therefore, pleaded that in view of these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) s upholding the order of imposition of penalty is not correct. 4. Shri R.K. Verma, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at being a small scale service provider, they were not aware of the provisions of law and also there were financial difficulties due to which they failed to discharge their service tax liability by the due date. 6. On going through the order-in-original as well as the order-in-appeal, I find that though the services provided by the appellant have been treated as Business Auxiliary Services as defined under Section 65(19) read with Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, there is no discussion at all as to under which clause of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, the services are covered. While the service of customer care would be covered under Clause (ii) of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, the bill collection services for which they .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates