9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of tax with interest - Held that:- This is a case where the assessee could have taken Cenvat credit of service tax paid by them and therefore, there was no reason for the assessee to suppress the fact or resort to mis-declaration and therefore, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that extended period could have been invoked in this case. We have taken note of the fact that the respondent-assessee was to pay tax as a receiver of service and not as a provider. Further, we also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in waiving penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 as it existed prior to 1.4.2011 would be applicable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Intellectual Property Services and other services and the assessee was to pay royalty fee at 1.4% of net revenue for the right to Group Intellectual Property and for Group services. Taking a view that the assessee should have paid service tax and the amount paid to the Group Companies abroad as a receiver of service as Group Companies did not have office in India, proceedings were initiated culminating confirmation of demand of service tax of ₹ 46,70,785/- with interest and imposition of penalty equal to the tax for the period from 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessee paid the entire amount of service tax and interest thereon and also 25% of the tax amount towards penalty. On appeal filed by the assessee before Commissioner (Appeals), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that even though the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellant is liable to pay tax only within the normal period, the assessee would not claim any refund of tax or interest already paid by them. It is his only request to uphold waiver of penalty. We also find that the assessee paid tax with interest and did not propose to claim refund in spite of having order in their favour would show that the respondent-assessee had no such intention to avoid tax or want to avoid by law. Such being the position, we consider that the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act has been rightly invoked. In view of above position, we confirm the demand of service tax and interest as not contested and set aside the penalty. Appeal and stay appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
