9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion received from M/s. Forever Living Imports (India) Pvt. Ltd. Revenue took the view that the commission earned by the appellant from M/s. Forever Living Imports (India) Pvt. Ltd. is liable to service tax under the category of "Business Auxiliary Services" classifiable under section 65(19)(i) of the Finance Act 1994. Show cause notice was issued on 22.10.2009 raising the demand to the tune of Rs. 11,08,820/- which was confirmed against the appellant along with interest and penalty by the Original Authority. When this order of the Original Authority was challenged before the Commissioner (A) the same was upheld. Hence the present appeals. 3. Heard B.S. Yadav, Advocate for the Applicants and Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent. 4. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that by providing multi level marketing services to their principle they have provided services falling under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' which were liable to service tax. 6. We find that the period involved is 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2009 whereas the show cause notice stand issued on 22.10.2009. 7. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant admitted that the issue on merit stands decided against them in a series of decisions of the Tribunal. Specifically, he referred to the Final Order No.ST/A/51818-51855/2015-CU(DB) dated 09/06/2015, which has since been followed by the Tribunal in many other decisions. He, however, submitted that in the cited decisions, the demand upheld is restricted to that falling under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases, there were two views in the Department itself, it cannot be said that on the question as to whether the activity of the assessees was taxable under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, there was no scope for doubt. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) when there is scope for doubt in the mind of an assessee on a particular issue, the longer limitation period, under proviso to Section 11 A(l) cannot be invoked and in our view, the ratio of this judgment of the Apex Court is applicable to the facts of these cases. Therefore, the longer limitation period of 5 years under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
