9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itation - Held that:- It is seen that the appellant has failed to file the necessary service tax returns and have suppressed from the Department, that they were rendering the service during the disputed period. Consequently, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower authorities that the demand can be raised under the extended period of limitation. Penalties u/s 76 and 78 - Held that:- the recent judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ramawat Construction Co. [2017 (5) TMI 705 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] is application to the facts of the present case in which it has been held that the penalties under both Sections 76 and 78 are liable to be imposed - penalties upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - S.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dential Life Insurance Company. Hence, it is submitted that the levy of service tax once again on the appellant is not justified. She further submits that in any case, the penalties under both Sections 76 and 78 is not leviable in view of the decision of the CCE vs. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana 2011 (24) STR 173 (P H). 5. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue countered the arguments and justified the impugned order. He submits that the reverse charge mechanism specified under Rule 2(1)(d) of the Rules is in relating to Insurance business. However, the demand in the present case is relating to the commission received by the appellant in respect of the service rendered to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Limited and ICICI Housing Finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed from the Department, that they were rendering the service during the disputed period. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower authorities that the demand can be raised under the extended period of limitation. 8. On the issue of penalties, we have considered the rival submissions and both the sides relied on different case laws. We note that the recent judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ramawat Construction Co. (supra) is application to the facts of the present case in which it has been held that the penalties under both Sections 76 and 78 are liable to be imposed. 9. By following the above decision, we upheld the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
