9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 1994 but the amount of penalty has not been quantified. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Service tax department for goods transport agency service only. During the course of Audit, it was observed that Appellant was liable to pay Service tax of Rs. 7,31,324/- on commission paid to commission agents in foreign currency for promoting the sale outside India under 'Business Auxiliary Service' under Section 65(105) (zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 On these allegations, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for proposing to demand the entire amount as mentioned in the audit notice. The Appellant in compliance deposited the partial demand (pertaining to period after 18.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 76 is liable to be set aside. 4.1 She further submitted that in the present case, the extended period is not invokable and penalty not imposable because the entire issue travelled upto Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India - 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.) maintained at Union of India v. Indian National Shipowners Association reported in 2010 (17) S.T.R. J57 (S.C.) and was decided in favour of the Appellant. 4.2 She further submitted that this shows that the issue relates to interpretation of law, therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the present case and hence the penalty is not imposable. 4.3 She further placed reliance on Board Instruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raud or suppression and further, the penalty under Section 76 can only be imposed when the show cause notice is issued within normal period of limitation; which fact has been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority in the Order-in-Original dated 16.12.2010. 4.7 She also submits that in the present case, the penalty has been imposed by invoking the extended period of limitation which is bad in law. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, we find that as soon as audit objection was raised demanding service tax of Rs. 7,31,324/- the appellant deposited Rs. 5,49,050/- alongwith interest on 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
