9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the period involved in the present case is 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association [ 2009 (12) TMI 850 - SC ORDER ] held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax prior to 18.04.2006 and settled the issue finally which also shows that the issue relates to interpretation of law and extended period of limitation is not invokable and therefore, the penalty cannot be imposed. It is found that the impugned order has travelled beyond the OIO because in the OIO, the original authority held that the appellant is not liable to penalty under Section 76 and against the said finding, no appeal was filed by the department and no cross objections were filed before the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 18.04.2006) amounting to Rs. 5,49,050/- along with interest on 02.07.2009 and in respect of remaining demand of Rs. 1,82,274/-, the Appellant submitted the same is not liable to be paid. 2.2 After following due process, the entire demand in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Instructions dated 30.06.2010 and 26.09.2011, issued to clarify the position subsequent to decision in the case of Indian Shipowners (Supra). 4.4 She further submits that the appellant was under bonafide belief that the service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating 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 02.07.2009 pertaining to the period after 18.04.2006 and contested the demand of Rs. 1,82,274/-. Further, we find that the period involved in the present case is 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
