9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at appellant had failed to charge and pay the service tax on the value received as pure agent and value of director service for which it had contravened the provision of Section 68 of the Finance Act. There is nothing available in the show-cause that such contravention of the Act or Rule was made with an intent to evade payment of service tax. In the instant case when the nature of service provide by the appellant being marketing and research agency services, why those items like travel cost, local conveyance, interview etc. will not be considered as expenditure for a company engaged in marketing and research agency. Be that as it may, when appellant had not challenged the same those point needs no further discussion except for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod from October 2013 to March 2014 on 05.04.2014. Vide show-cause notice dated 28.09.2014 issued under section 73(1) it was asked to reply for alleged short payment of service tax to the tune of ₹ 41,04,525/- and asked as to why the same amount along with interest and penalty under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act shall not be recovered from it? Matter was adjudicated upon that ended in confirmation of duty liability, interest and penalty by the adjudicating authority and after the same was unsuccessfully challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), jurisdiction of the Tribunal is invoked. 3. In the memo of appeal and during the course of hearing of appeal, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is beyond the scop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing penalty on the appellant as it was apparent from the ST-3 returns that appellant had filed the same but not paid the service tax and it has also admitted tax liability in response to the show-cause notice without assigning any reason as to why it had not discharged the service tax liability for which interference by the Tribunal is uncalled for. 5. Heard from the both sides at length, perused the case record and the relied upon judicial decisions. Going by the show-cause notice, and its reply it can very well be said that assesse (appellant) was found to have short paid the service tax during the period and it had gone to its notice during finalisation of the financial accounts for which it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so fail to understand the logic of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the sense that, to his best assessment, what could be considered as "pure agent" in terms of Rule 5 of Service Tax Determination of Rules, 2006 which confines the definition to the expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider as a pure agent of the recipient of service. In the instant case when the nature of service provide by the appellant being marketing and research agency services, why those items like travel cost, local conveyance, interview etc. will not be considered as expenditure for a company engaged in marketing and research agency. Be that as it may, when appellant had not challenged the same those point needs no further discussion except for the purpose th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
