9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008-2009 the appellant have not disputed their liability and pointed out that they had paid the service tax and whatever shortfall was there, had been paid before the issue of show cause notice. It is admitted fact as recorded in the order-in-original, however, shortfall was paid after the initiation of enquiry by the Department. A show cause notice was issued dated 22/10/2009 for the extended period 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 alleging therein that the appellant is providing taxable services to their clients and collected the tax alongwith the value of service, but not deposited the same regularly in the Central exchequer. Accordingly, show cause proposed to adjudicate and collect the taxable amount of Rs. 50,84,581/- including cess with a fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the impugned order that there is no demand in the year 2006-2007. So far the differential tax demand for the year 2005-2006 is concerned, in para 13 of the order-in-original the payment had been recorded at page 12 of the order as having been paid by the challan dated 06/3/2010. So far demand for financial year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 is concerned for the differential tax, in para 6, it is recorded that differential amount have been paid with interest on 24/09/2009. So far the demand for 2004-2005 is concerned for Rs. 7,99,864/-, the learned Counsel have taken us through the definition of Business Auxiliary Services during the relevant period. During the financial year, there is change in the definition w.e.f. 10/09/2004, wherein some ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of goods. The appellants provided services like filing drawback claims, filing application for DEPB, EPCG licences, processing application for Star Export House Certificate etc. The reasoning given by the Original Authority for tax liability is that appellants services certainly promoted and encouraged the sale of goods of the clients and served as inputs in support of their business and export activities. Considering the nature and scope of services rendered by the appellants we find no support for such finding. In fact, in respect of drawback the appellants role comes after the goods were sold and exported. We find that the scope of Business Auxiliary Services does not cover the activities of appellants as they do not deal with promoti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
