9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant has paid the Service Tax and Education Cess amounting to Rs.15,07,204/- on various date in 2007 and 2009. The available records also indicate that the Appellant have received commission amounting to Rs.9,69,558/- on 22.05.2003, which was not liable to Service Tax in as Business Auxiliary Service was introduced only w.e.f 01.07.2003 - Even though they paid service tax later, there was a delay in payment of service tax. Interest is liable to be paid for the delayed payment of service tax. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has appropriated the excess paid amount against the interest liability. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order adjusting the excess payment against the interest liability payable by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. ANPAZHAKAN MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Shyamal Dey , Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER K. ANPAZHAKAN : M/s Rescon (India) Pvt. Ltd (The Appellant) are engaged in the business of providing 'Business Auxiliary Service' (BAS). Verification of the records of the Appellant by Headquarters SIV Unit during the year 2006, revealed that the Appellant has received Rs.1,45,07,954/- as commission from different companies doing marketing and sales promotion of their clients, but not paid service tax on the same. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 03.10.2008 was issued to the Appellant demanding Service Tax and Education Cess amounting to Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e received commission amounting to Rs.9,69,558/- on 22.05.2003, which was not liable to Service Tax, as Business Auxiliary Service was introduced only w.e.f 01.07.2003. The adjudicating authority has accepted this fact in his findings and held that there was an excess payment of Rs.1,22,841/-.There was confusion regarding the liability of service tax payable as a Commission Agent . Accordingly, there was a delay in payment of service tax. However, after the visit of officers on 23.02.2007, they have paid moat of the service tax before issue of the show cause notice on 03.10.2008. In any case, entire service tax along with interest was paid before adjudication of the case. Accordingly, they contended that penalties imposed under Sections 77 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability payable by the appellant. 6. The main contention of the Appellant against the impugned order is with respect to the imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Regarding penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, we observe that there were some confusion prevailed during the relevant period on the liability of payment of service tax as a Commission Agent . However, the Appellant agreed their liability and paid most of the service tax before issue of the Notice. In fact, they have paid excess service tax than the actual liability confirmed in the impugned order. This has been recorded in the order-in-original by the adjudicating authority. There is no other evidence brought on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
