2008 (3) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ness auxiliary service - appellants' contention that business auxiliary services provided by a commission agent were exempt Not. 13/03, is not acceptable - Not 13/03 had an explanation which exempts only such commission agents, who cause sale or purchase of goods not for sale or purchase of services like car loans - demand is justified but penalty set aside for bonafide belief
Dr. Chittaranjan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n after the Appellants came to know about their tax liability they have paid the tax amount entirely before issue of the show cause notice on 30-1-2006. He states that the Appellants are eligible for exemption under the said Notification till its amendment on 9-7-2004 and since the Appellants had no mala fide intention not to pay the tax, penalty is not imposable on them. 2. Heard the learned DR, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce the explanation to the Notification is restricted to sale or purchase of goods and not for sale or purchase of services like car loans, strictly interpreted the exemption is not applicable in the case of the applicants As such, the demand of tax as well as demand of interest on the same are in order. 4. However, as regards the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, I am of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X