9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; For the Respondent: Shri Amresh Jain, AR ORDER PER: R.K.SINGH Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 10.2.2009 which upheld the primary adjudication order dated 5.2.2008 in terms of which service tax demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March, 2006 believing it to be not payable as it was a commission in their capacity as sub contractor. It paid service tax by 5/4/2006 for the period 10.9.2004 to 9.9.2006 and for the period July 2004 to 9.9.2004 it did not pay service tax as M/s.Maruti Finance Ltd. clarified that it had paid service tax on the full commission received from banks (a part of which was given to the appellant) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 has not been expressly extended and so that benefit could be given to it. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. In this case, most (about 92%) of the impugned demand of service tax alongwith interest was deposited voluntarily by 5.4.2006 and the remaining (about 8% of the impugned demand) was deposited alongwith interest just before rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received from Maruti Finance Ltd. (MFL) considering itself as sub contractor of MFL and it paid almost the entire (approx.92%) of the impugned demand after the position got explained to it and the remaining about 8% was not paid as MFL told it that the service tax on the entire commission it (MFL) received from banks that included the commission it (MFL) paid to the appellant was paid by it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
