9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax department under various categories. The dispute in the present appeals relates to their liability to service tax for their activities as a person engaged in Restricted Money Changing (RMC). In terms of an agreement dated 15/06/2002 between the appellant and the Bank of Punjab Limited, the appellants were accepting foreign exchange from their customers. Such foreign exchange is accepted and passed on to the Bank of Punjab in terms of the said agreement. The appellants received certain amount as a consideration/commission for their activities. The Revenue proceeded against the appellant to hold that such consideration received from Bank of Punjab shall be liable to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the foreign currency is nothing but goods as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Sales Tax Officer, Piliphit Vs. M/s Budh Prakash Jai Prakash - 1954 APR 459 and CEGAT, Mumbai in Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. Vs. CC - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 724 (Tribunal). The appellants essentially acted as an agent and obtained commission for their activities. These are rightly taxed under BAS. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. It is clear that the appellant is not a regular foreign exchange broker. They do not have such licence. They are only involved in RMC in terms of Section 7 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Their area of operation is restricted only to purchase of foreign exchange. The appellants are accepting/ purchasin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that in such circumstances, it is not tenable to invoke extended period with allegation of willful mis-statement, suppression etc. The impugned order justified the demand for extended period on the ground that the appellant is a public limited company with well qualified staff, with knowledge of taxation law. We find these reasons cannot justify the allegation of fraud or suppression in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Accordingly, while upholding the tax liability of the appellant on merit, we note that such liability shall be sustainable only within the normal period of limitation in terms of Section 73. On the same reasoning, we hold the penalties are liable to be set aside. We order accordingly. The appeals are di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
