9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed against order-in-appeal dated 30.7.2009 in terms of which service tax demand under cargo handling service pertaining to the period 17.12.2002 to 1.5.2006 was set aside for the period 17.12.2002 to 30.4.2006 on the ground that the appellant was an individual and therefore not a commercial concern. Penalties under Sections 76 & 78 were also set aside in terms of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of both sides. We find that the appellant was a proprietorship concern and therefore would qualify to be a commercial concern as it was engaged in commercial activity of cargo handling. However, we find that during the relevant period, therefore was indeed confusion whether individuals were covered under the scope of commercial concern as is evident from CBEC vide Circular No. F.No. B3/7/2003-TRU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contention of the appellant is not held to be acceptable, it is evident that during the period involved, there was scope for confusion that the individuals were not covered under the scope of 'commercial concern'. In these circumstances it is not unreasonable on the part of the appellant to have a bona fide belief that it was not liable to pay service tax. In case of CCE Vs. Chemphar Dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
