9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed into agreement for royalty. The agreement does not bear any clause for levy of service tax and payment thereof. The royalty amount has been accounted for in books of account of both the companies i.e. royalty holder and royalty payee. The service tax and interest have been paid by the appellant and they are not contesting such liability. In view of this position, appellant have not tried to hide any transaction of the royalty and for which legal agreement was singed by both the parties. - appellant have shown reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax on time, however the same alongwith interest has been paid by them. In view of the above position, I am of the view that appellant have made out the case of waiver of penalty under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ganesh K.S. Iyer, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that aforesaid penalty was confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) only on the ground that appellant have not contested imposition of penalty under Section 78 in respect of intellectual property services. He submits that para 3 of the impugned order discussed about the ground of appeal of the appellant, point no. 7 of para No. 3 mentioned that 'As the appellant were under bonafide belief of their activities being non taxable due to the confusion prevailing in field, they claimed immunity under Section 80 of the Act in respect of the penalties imposed'. He further submits that appellant have specifically sought for in para 15.1of the ground of appeal before the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal. He submits that appellant has made ground of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) only for waiver of penalty in respect of renting of immovable property services and not in respect of intellectual property services , therefore since the appellant have not contested the penalty under Section 78 in respect of intellectual property services before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly confirmed penalty. He placed reliance in the case of Balaji Society [2011 (38) STR 139]. He also submits that in the present case extended period is invokable as appellant has neither informed to the department nor taken registration, therefore department not in knowledge of activity of the appellant. 5. I have ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereof was sought for under Section 80, therefore I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in holding that the appellant have not contested penalty under Section 78 in respect of intellectual property services. Now whether the appellant have made out the case for reasonable cause for waiver of penalty invoking Section 80 of the Act. On going through the records and the submissions, I find that as regard the intellectual property services appellant have entered into agreement for royalty. The agreement does not bear any clause for levy of service tax and payment thereof. The royalty amount has been accounted for in books of account of both the companies i.e. royalty holder and royalty payee. The service tax and interest have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
