9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 10.09.2004 to show that this was to have retrospective effect. It is a well settled principle of law that in statute every provision should be taken to have only perspective effect unless there is a specific indication or otherwise - the appellant is clearly liable to service tax under the head of Business Auxiliary Service for the services rendered by them during the relevant period. Penalty - Held that:- The appellant could have held a bonafide belief though wrongly that they were not covered under the service tax and hence in exercise of the demand confirmed under the Section 80 the penalty is set aside. The appeal is disposed of by upholding the tax with interest and setting aside the penalties - appeal dismissed - decided a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he First Appellate Authority who rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence this appeal. The representative of the appellant appeared before us and explained that they had rendered services to M/s GE Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd., as per their agreement dated 01.05.2003, according to which they visit identified customers in their territory, notify them and assist GE in processing proposals for retail financing facilities of the identified customers. For each proposed account, they get paid by GE. Their job is confined to liaisoning with potential customers and helping them with the documents while the actual decision with respect of the financing is taken by GE. He would argue that they were not dealing with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that this was to have retrospective effect. It is a well settled principle of law that in statute every provision should be taken to have only perspective effect unless there is a specific indication or otherwise. In view of the above, we find that the appellant is clearly liable to service tax under the head of Business Auxiliary Service for the services rendered by them during the relevant period. We have also considered the case law of Car World Autoline (supra) relied upon by the appellant and find in that case the benefit of exemption Notification No. 25/2004 dated 10.09.2004 was extended to the demand pertaining to an earlier period. However, there is no reason therein for retrospective application of this exemption notification. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
