9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Patra, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent Per: Anil Choudhary These appeals are filed against a common Order-in-Appeal No. 488-490-ST/APPL/KNP/2010 dated 27/09/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Kanpur. Appeal Nos.ST/1759 & 1760/10-CU-[DB] 2. The issue in these two appeals is whether appellant is liable to pay penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth the Orders-in-Original. The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) vide common Order-in-Appeal rejected the appeals. Being aggrieved appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. The Id. counsel for the appellant have urged that prior to May 2006, the definition of "Business Auxiliary Service" under Section 65(105) (zzb) of the Finance Act was- "service means any service provided or to be provided to a client by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cern and accordingly do not fall under the ambit of service tax for the period prior to 1st May 2006, under the head Business Auxiliary Service. Further, they gave the details of service tax paid under Business Auxiliary Service from February 2006 to October 2006. It is further urged that as per CBEC Circular No. 62/11/2003 dated 21st August, 2003. It has been clarified that a commercial concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of contumacious conduct or suppression of facts from the revenue is made out. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant did not liable to service tax under the classification Business Auxiliary Service for the period prior to 1st May 2006. We also delete the penalty imposed under Section 70, 76 & 78 of the Act. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed with consequential benefits. APPEAL No.ST/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
