9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26-6-2018 - Hon'ble Shri Ajay Sharma, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Arun Goyal, Advocate for the Appellants Shri K Podar, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri Ajay Sharma The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 27.2.2018. 2. The case of the department is that intelligence was received from ADG, DGCEI, New Delhi indicating that the appellant had rendered recovery agent services to ICICI bank but were not paying service tax leviable thereon. The summons were issued to the appellant. According to the department, since the appellant did not respond to repeated summons nor submitted the documents called for by the summons, therefore the department vide letter dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... banking company or a financial institution including a non-banking financial company or any other body corporate or a firm, by any person, in relation to recovery of any sums due to such banking company or financial institution, including a non-banking financial company, or any other body corporate or a firm, in any manner. 6. With effect from 01.07.2012, as per section 66 (B) of the Act, there shall be levied a tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) at the rate of twelve percent on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and collected in such manner as may be prescribed. 7. There is no dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 2,749/- and in place of that the appellants have deposited a further amount of ₹ 6,000/- on 9.6.2016. According to him, all transactions were recorded and tax has been paid timely due for relevant period and therefore, there was no suppression of facts for any evasion of duty attracting penal provisions under section 78 of the Act. 9. Learned AR appearing for the department reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). He submitted that appellants did not co-operate with the investigation nor produced any record before adjudicating authority or before Appellate authority. Therefore, both the authorities below have no occasion to deal with the challans produced by the appellant before this Tribunal. 10. Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
