9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1 & 3 of N/N. 42/2012-ST are satisfied - benefit of notification cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Cross Application No. ST/CROSS/70498/2018, ST/70809/2016-ST[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 71056/2018 - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh (Dy. Commr.) AR for Appellant Shri Aalok Arora (Advocate) for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The Revenue has filed present appeal against order dated 30/03/2016 Commissioner (Appeals), wherein she has held that there is no suppression on the part of assessee and set aside the penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. She has held that benefit under a Notification cannot be denied for procedural om ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uperintendents Customs and the said declaration also mentions the commission paid to overseas agent, it can be treated as compliance of Notification No. 42/2012-ST. They further stated in facts and the circumstances of the case, extended period is not invocable. The Adjudicating Authority as held they are liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service She has further held extended period is invocable, confirmed the demand and appropriated the same. She has also confirmed demand of interest, imposed equal penalty under Section 78 and ₹ 10,000/- under Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 30/03/2016 has held that the respondent has declared commission payable in the shipping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no liability of service tax. It has been argued by the Counsel that during the period October, 2008 to October, 2013, they have made exports of goods on ARE-1, Shipping Bill Bill of lading issued by Shipping Agencies and the export proceeds were received through banking channel in convertible foreign currency. It has been submitted, on Shipping Bill and Form SDF, there is mention of commission paid to foreign agents, in such a situation it cannot be said there is a suppression on the part of the respondent, as such the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that extended period is not invokable. It has been contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a reasoned Order by referring a number of judgments and rightly directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
