9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness Auxiliary Service'. They are providing services on repair and reconditioning of two-wheeler motor vehicles and the motor cars manufactured by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra through their authorized service stations and also are providing 'Business Auxiliary Services' to various bank and financial institutions. During the course of verification of accounts of the appellant by the Department, it revealed that the staff of the appellant were carrying out the functions / activities like processing of purchase orders, distribution and logistics, accounting and processing of transactions for on behalf of their sister concerns and that the above charges were debited in the accounts of the sister concerns and credited to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N. Satyanarayanan, learned AR (AC) appeared for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not contesting either the service tax demand nor the interest. He confined the contest only to imposition of penalty imposed under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He submitted that the appellants on being pointed out that their activities to their sister concern would attract levy of service tax under 'Business Support Service', discharged the service tax demand along with interest much before issue of Show Cause Notice. Since the appellants were under financial difficulty, they could not deposit the monies immediately but they made good before issue of Show Cause Notice. He submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.2009 and 2.12.2009 had deposited the interest amount on 3.3.2010 and 4.3.2010. Hence extended period was rightly invoked and the penalty under section 78 is imposable as suppression by the appellant was unearthed only by the department on verification of accounts. 7. I have heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the appellant is not contesting either the service tax demand nor the interest. He confined the contest only to imposition of penalty imposed under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On being pointed out by the department that they are liable to pay service tax, the appellant before issue of Show Cause Notice, had voluntarily paid the service tax amount of Rs.6,76,675/- and interest of Rs.1,83,385/. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
