9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri T.R. Ramesh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench, The issue in dispute concerns income received by appellants from various banks and financial institutions as commission, allegedly for providing service in relation to promoting and marketing various two-wheeler loan schemes of the latter. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, 2017 (50) S.T.R. 56 (Tri. - Mumbai) in support of his contention. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR supports the impugned order. He points out that the appellants have paid up the tax liability along with interest only after being pointed out by audit. 4. Heard both sides. We have gone through the facts. 5. Without doubt, the issue of taxability on the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the normal period of limitation with the following observations "14. The period involved in this appeal is 20-10-2004 to 18-12-2007. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 21-2-2008. As can be seen from the discussions above the matter was being interpreted by judicial forums in different ways as may be seen from the decisions quoted by the Appellants. The Higher Courts have been taking the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
