9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri D.K. Deb, Asstt. Commr. (D.R.) for the Department Shri Abhinav Kalra for the Respondent (s) Per Mr. Anil Choudhary The Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. Appeal-I, MRT/MRT/39-ST/2014 dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Meerut-l. 2.1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee is engaged in providing the services of promotion and marketing/distribution of various products of M/s. B.S.N.L, which allegedly fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) in terms of Section 65(105) (zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 which defines the term taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .N.L. SIM Card, recharge coupons, tariff vouchers etc. to the customers. 2.4. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 10.01.2013 was issued to the respondent for recovery of Service tax of ₹ 14,30,559/- including Education Cess Secondary Higher Education Cess alongwith interest and penalties as provided under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the said Act were also proposed to be levied against them. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 32/JC/M-1/14 dated 31.03.2014 Confirmed the demand of Service tax to the tune of ₹ 14,30,559/- under Section 73(1) of the Act along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. A penalty of ₹ 200/- per day or 2% per month (whichever is higher) was imposed under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax on its branded items and service tax cannot be charged twice for the same service which has also been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal, New Delhi in service tax Appeal No.171/2007 in the case of South East Corporation Vs. Commr. of Central Excise vide Order dated 25.05.2007 (2009) 22 SIT 446, wherein it has been held that the said activity does not come within the ambit of BAS and hence, the demand is not sustainable. Further, it is submitted that the issue has already been settled as per the similar case of M/s G.R. Movers Vs. CCEx, Lucknow reported in (Tri.-DeI.). (iv) The penalty is not imposable as there is no evidence of deliberate defiance of law. 5. The Id. C.A., Shri Abhinav Kalra, appearing for the Respondent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
