2007 (2) TMI 675

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7; 1,23,31,979/- along with Education Cess to the tune of ₹ 17,603/- for the period from July 2003 to March 2005 under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act 1994. He has demanded interest under Section 75 ibid. He has imposed penalty of ₹ 150/- per each day of failure to pay the Service Tax under Section 76 of the Act. He has also imposed penalty equal to the service tax demanded under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants strongly challenged the impugned order. 3. Shri N.C. Prasad and Mrs. Sindhu, learned Advocates appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate explained to the Bench the various activities of the appellant and urg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... auses sale or purchase of goods on behalf of another person for a consideration which is based on the quantum of such sale or purchase. Further he contended that Para 3.1 of the Show Cause Notice issued to the appellants states clearly that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that from the agreement of agency dated 1-4-04 that Margadarshi has been providing BAS as Commission agents to their clients Ushodaya in respect of various services . In view of the above, the Adjudicating authority cannot hold that the appellant is not covered by the definition of commission agent. Finally the learned Advocate contended that the Department was very well aware of the activities of the appellants and therefore invocation of longer perio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be considered as a commission agent and further, they would not come within the purview of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. We note that this finding of the Commissioner is contradictory to Para 3.1 of the Show Cause Notice wherein it has been stated that the investigation reveals that the appellants has been providing business auxiliary service as commission agent. Even as per the Show Cause Notice is true, the appellants would be covered under the Notification No. 13/2003. In any case, we find that invocation of longer period is not at all justified as there is no evidence of suppression of facts. Thus we are allowing the appeal solely on time bar. On the question of leviability of the services rendered by the appellants, we do not find it n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X