9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided in favor of appellant. - ST/23595/2014-SM - 22958/2017 - Dated:- 6-12-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri S. Parvathi, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent(AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 18/07/2014 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-original but dropped the penalty imposed under Section 76. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant had been promoting and marketing the services of various financial institutions against receipt of remuneration as commission which was paid to them as a percentage of the loan amount s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law on the point. She further submitted that the appellant was under a bona fide belief that the activity undertaken by them is not taxable under the service tax regime during the period of dispute. She further submitted that there was no suppression on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of tax. In support of her submission, she relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Roshan Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut [2009(13) STR 667 (Tri. Del.)] wherein it was held that during the relevant time, it was related to interpretation of question of law and therefore there was no suppression or misstatement and consequently the penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 were dropped. She further submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e intelligence visited the premises of the appellant 6. After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusal of records, I find that the appellant paid the service tax along with interest during investigation and before the issue of show-cause notice. The appellant entertained a bona fide belief that their activities are not liable to service tax during the period in dispute and it is only on 06/11/2006, the Board clarified the issue. Further I also find that there are decisions as cited supra which are in favour of the appellant wherein it has been held that there cannot be a suppression with intent to evade tax when the assessee entertained a bona fide belief on the basis of certain decisions in favour of the assessee. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
