9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applied for Service Tax Registration in May, 2007 on their own. However, they were not paying service tax and this non-payment was detected pointed out when the officers of Anti-Evasion visited their office on 7-9-08. The appellant's service tax liability was determined as Rs. 1,73,155/- which was discharged by them along with interest on 23-10-2008 and 2-12-2008. Subsequently, the department issued a show cause notice for confirmation of the above-mentioned service tax demand along with interest and also for imposition of penalty on the appellant under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 29-10-2009 by which the service tax demand of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce July, 2003 and though they had obtained Service Tax Registration in May, 2007, they neither paid the service tax nor filed the returns for one full year and that when the Service Tax Registration had been taken by the appellant, they cannot plead ignorance of law. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The appellant's activities, as disclosed in para 2 of the order-in-original passed by the Asstt. Commissioner are providing services under Franchisee Agreement dated 26-4-2007 with M/s. TTSL in respect of post-paid connection and collection of amount for bills and providing customer care on behalf of M/s. TTSL. For providing these services to M/s. TTSL, the appellant were getting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of their agreement with M/s. TTCL were covered by Section 65(19) of the Finance Act. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether the entire commission received by the appellant was for the services covered under definition of Business Auxiliary Services as defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act 1994. Though the appellant have not disputed their service tax liability, in view of the above position, it would not be correct to impose penalty on them 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. Moreover from the circumstances of this case, I find force in the appellant's plea that non-payment was due to their ignorance. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
