9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticular manner by the Policy of the government. That by itself will not exempt them from tax liability - there is no case for excluding income of appellant as commission in disbursing loan, from tax liability under BAS - demand upheld. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the appellant is nothing to gain from suppressing the fact and no malafide intend can be attributed to them in the present facts and circumstances of the case - demand proceeding initiated against the appellant are barred by limitation for the period beyond normal period. Appeal allowed in part. - Service Tax Appeal No.4191–4192 of 2012 - A/50565-50566/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 6-2-2018 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined commission and are liable to pay service tax. He did not impose penalties invoking the provisions of section 80. He held that there is reasonable cause for not paying the service tax in time by the appellant. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted on following lines a) The appellant is created by an Act of Parliament, for discharging the statutory function in terms of Policy of Government of India. Their activity cannot be subjected to service tax as they are mandated by the Government to act for welfare of sugar industry. The activities cannot be considered as commercial service rendered by any service provider so that service tax can be attracted. The Appellant is acting as an agent to the Government and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant in disbursing loans may be due to Government policy and may be governed by the statutory provisions. However, the loans were given to commercial sugar factory and activity of disbursing loans and getting the commission for the same is clearly covered by the statutory provisions. There is no bar in taxing the activity which is in pursuance of Act. The commission so received by the appellant is not income for the Government as a fees or tax. The same is not a statutory levy. The activity of the appellant are purely commercial though mandated by the policy of the Government. He also referred to the finding of the original authority at para 55 of the impugned order which deals with nature of the service. 6. On limitation, he su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and analysed Board circular clarifying on the fees collected for statutory performance. We find that there is no case for excluding income of appellant as commission in disbursing loan, from tax liability under BAS. We do not find any infirmity in the order of original authority on merit. Accordingly, the appellant have no case on merits. 11. Regarding limitation, we are in agreement with the submissions made by the appellant. Admittedly, they have been intimating the department about their activity even 5 years before issue of show cause notice. We have perused their letter dated 7.4.04 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi where they have explained the full particulars of their activity, nature of loan arra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
