9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jeswara Sastry Associates - For the Appellant Shri Parashivamurthy, AR - For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 30/08/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are providing the service to M/s. South India Paper Mills Ltd. (herein after referred to as SIPM) in respect of promotion, marketing and collection of payment from the customers. During the course of audit of the records of SIPM, it was noticed that the appellant had rendered service to SIPM from 2009-10 to 2012-13 and received ₹ 1,15,31,494/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard both sides and perused records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed without properly appreciating the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act and the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the appellant had a bona fide belief that the services rendered for promotion and marketing of products did not attract service tax since SIPM was clearing the said manufactured goods on payment of excise duty on a value which included other marketing expenses. He further submitted that on becoming aware of the fact that he is liable to pay service tax, despite financial difficulties, the appellant voluntari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e benefit of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act and the case of appellant fall under Section 73(4) as he has suppressed the material facts and did not get the registration under Service Tax. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, I find that it is an admitted fact that the appellant had paid the service tax along with interest much before the issuance of the show-cause notice. I also find that after payment of service tax and the interest, the appellant vide the letter dt. 22/01/2013 informed the Assistant Commissioner regarding the said payment of service tax and interest and requested not to issue show-cause notice under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Further I find that the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
