9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers explaining their stand and asking for clarification reflects upon the bonafide of the appellant, that they entertained a belief that 80% of the commission can be excluded - Department is not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation under section 73 for demand of Service Tax in the present case - The Show cause notice which has been issued on 15.4.2011 for demand of service tax for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 is time barred and hence the demand is required to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.52584 of 2014-Cus - ST/A/55696/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 4-8-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, we heard Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate and Shri Ranjan Khanna, learned DR for the Revenue. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that they will be entitled to abatement of 80% of the consideration, Since these were towards expenditure or costs incurred while providing such services. He further, argued that the demand is barred by limitation inasmuch as the appellant has duly reflected in all ST 3 returns filed by them, the fact of Service tax is being paid only on 20-% of the service consideration. He also pointed out the communication between the appellant and jurisdictional Revenue authorities to indicate that the said fact was brought to the notice of jurisdictional officer for confirmation. He argued that in such a scenario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng through the agreement, we note that the condition prescribed are not satisfied by the appellant. This is particularly so in view of the fact that the agreement does not suggest that the payments made by the appellant were on behalf of the recipient of service. Further, the same has not been separately indicated in the invoices issued by the appellant. From the record, we see that the appellant has also indicated that 80% is only an estimate and may not be exact. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no justification for excluding 80% of commission from payment of service tax. 8. Next we turn to the claim of the appellant that demand is time barred. Our attention was drawn to the ST 3 returns filed by the appellant. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
