9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limitation - Held that:- The appellant have neither registered themselves nor filed any ST-3 return. In such a situation department was absolutely unaware about the activity of the appellant. Therefore, there is a clear suppression of fact - the demand was rightly confirmed for the extended period. Penalty u/s 76 and 78 of FA - Held that:- The penalty under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment is that the said commission amount is taxable under the provision of sub-Section (19) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 under the head of Business Auxiliary Service. However, the appellants have neither registered themselves under the Business Auxiliary Service nor did they pay any Service Tax on the amounts they received as commission/ incentive for the services they rendered to the Finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. He further submits that the penalties under Section 76 and 78 were imposed, the same deserved to be set aside invoking Section 80 as the appellant had no malafide intention and the payment of Service Tax could not be made for the genuine reason that the matter was not free from doubt. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Wings Group of Compaines-2008 (12) STR 287 (Tri. Bang) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment was absolutely unaware about the activity of the appellant. Therefore, there is a clear suppression of fact. Hence, we do not find any force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel on limitation. Hence, the demand was rightly confirmed for the extended period. 5. As regard, penalty imposed under Section 76 and 78 simultaneously we find that in light of Hon ble Gujarat High Court judgment in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
