9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were issued Show Cause Notices dated 10.5.2011 and 28.9.2011. Vide the said orders-in-original, in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 10.5.2011 a demand of Rs. 17,07,90,086/- along with interest, and penalties including mandatory penalty was confirmed, while in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 28.9.2011 a demand of Rs. 70,50,196/- along with interest, and penalty under Sections 76 & 77 was confirmed. For the sake of convenience the Show Cause Notice wise demands showing the various components thereof and the periods involved are summarised in the table below :- S.No. Categories SCN Issued Under C.No. V(ST) Adj.-II/JPR-II/134/2011/531 dated 10.05.2011 SCN Issued Under C.No. V(ST)Adj.-II/JPR-II/134/2011/2381 Dated 28.09.2011 Period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /leaders at the conferences organised by the appellants. The Show Cause Notice alleged that this was tantamount to the appellants rendering the service by providing platform of meetings of their distributor/leaders in order to address the distributors/leaders for furtherance of their insurance business and therefore it fell in the category of Support Services of Business or Commerce. 6. The demand mentioned at Sr. No. (3) of the above table was for the amount received by appellants for supply of data base to the insurance related companies alleging that this fell in the category of Mailing List Compilation and Mailing Service. 7. The Show Cause Notice dated 10.5.2011 alleged that the appellants indulged in wilful mis-statement and suppr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was compiled as per insurance needs of the insurance related companies, as is evident from the agreement entered into between the appellants and the insurance related companies. (iv) The ld. AR also stressed that there is a clear mis-statement/suppression of facts as the appellants neither took registration nor filed any returns and also did not pay any service tax. (v) Regarding the contention of the appellants that there was a bona fide belief in their mind regarding impugned taxability, the ld. AR countered to say that bona fide doubt is informed belief and there is nothing to suggest any basis that such belief could exist in the mind of the appellants. 10. We have considered submissions of both the parties. 11. The demand mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the definition of Support Services of Business or Commerce prima facie makes it evident that this would get covered under the scope of the said definition, at least under that limb of the inclusive part which says operational assistance for marketing'. It is pertinent to mention that the main part of the definition of Support Services of Business or Commerce is arguably too broad to be a valid taxable expression and therefore its inclusive part has to be fallen upon to delineate the scope of the said definition and that is what has been done presently. 13. By adopting the same approach, it is seen that as regards demand at Sr. No. (2) of the table above, the amount on which service tax has been demanded represents the amount ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , stuffing, sealing, metering or mailing, for, or on behalf of, the client, The related service is defined in Section 65(105)(zzzq) as 'to any person by any other person in relation to mailing list compilation and mailing. 15. The appellants have contended that they did not compile any data for or on behalf of the client inasmuch as data was already available with them as a result their own business activity. The ld. A.R. on the other hand contended that it was not raw data which was made available to the insurance related companies and as per agreement data was to be as per their insurance needs. It is seen that the insurance related companies were not allowed access to their entire data. From the perusal of the records, it is evident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants. The ld. AR, on the other hand, has contended that the acts/omission on the part of the appellants in the form of not taking the registration, not filing the returns and not paying the service tax clearly amounted to wilful mis-statement or suppression of the facts. It is well settled that the question of wilful mis-statement/ suppression of facts is a question of law as well as facts which requires analysis of a degree which is more appropriately to be done at the stage of final hearing. 17. Having regard to the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that a deposit of 50% of the demand components mentioned at Sr. No. 1 and 3 of the table above would meet the requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
