9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption was claimed before the adjudicating authority, who adverted to the claim but failed to deal with the same and simply assessed tax on this aspect at the full rate. It is contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant and this contention is not disputed by that ld. DR that tax liability on operating lease/ hire purchase transactions, if taxable and after granting the benefit of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-ST would be about Rs. 40,000. Prima-facie invocation of the extended period is not justified. We therefore grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of all further proceedings for recovery of the adjudicated liability, on condition that the appellant remits Rs. 2 lakhs (comprising the interest demand on cenvat credit availed plus the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47/-. Extended period is invoked for initiating the proceedings which culminated in the impugned order. The entire period in issue is beyond the normal period of limitation under Section 73 of the Act. 3. The adjudicating authority negated the several defences of the appellant, that cheque bouncing charges in the nature of penal amounts collected for the additional operative burden incurred by the appellant as a consequence of dishonoured cheques; that foreclosure charges collected for advanced closure of transactions (prior to the normal contracted period) are not within the ambit of the taxable issue; and that consideration received on lease/ hire purchase transactions fall outside the ambit of banking or other financial services as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fall within the ambit of the taxable service while the later distinguished the earlier judgment in SIDBI and concluded that foreclosure charges come within the ambit of banking and other financial service. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant entertained a bonafide belief that foreclosure charges would not fall within the ambit of banking and other financial services. In support of the claim that the appellant entertained a bonafide belief, it is contended that Board Circulars and conflicting decisions of the Tribunal show that a interpretative conflict is present. 6. We also notice in so far as operating lease/ hire purchase transactions are concerned, on which demand of Rs. 35,47,359/- is confirmed, that Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
