9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided in favor of appellant. - ST/20291/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21183 / 2018 - Dated:- 20-8-2018 - HON'BLE MR. S. S. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Pradyumna G.H., Adcocate For the Appellant Mrs. Kavita Podwal. AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (A) has confirmed the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a dealer in two wheelers automobiles and also runs a service station for servicing of the two wheelers automobiles. They have registered for payment of Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994 (h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that based on the appellants own record and accounted transactions, audit team came out with the objection that commission received by them from the finance companies attracted the levy of Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service as per Board s Circular No. 87/05/2006-ST dated 06.11.2006. He further submitted that the appellants had neither charged the Service Tax nor collected from their customers i.e. finance companies and still deposited the entire Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Service Tax from the service recipients. Further, the entire Service Tax along with interest was paid by the appellants partly before the issue of SCN and partly before the passing of Order-in-Original by the Assistant Commissioner. Further, I find that on the letter issued by the Range Officer dated 24.03.2017, the appellants paid the balance interest of ₹ 70,106/- on 24.03.2017. Further, I find that the appellant is an illiterate person, not knowing the provisions of the Service Tax but he paid the Service Tax along with the interest and 25% of the penalty. Therefore by following the ratio of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor Worlds cited supra, I am of the opinion that the appellants are not liable to pay the remainin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
