9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot cover this activity. It becomes clear that the service rendered by the appellant is taxable service. The Notification No. 7/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 as brought to our notice introduced levy of service tax on the commission received. Seen from both these angles it stands clear on record that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the amount of commission received during the impugned period (2014-2015 to 2017-2018). Benefit of SSI exemption - calculation of tax demand was objected by the appellant on the ground of benefit of N/N. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 granting SSI exemption, appropriate rate of service tax during the impugned period as the service tax rate has changed many times and eligibility of the appellant of cum tax ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard Shri Arpit Goyal, learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant assisted by Shri Varun Gaba and Shri Arun Sheoran, learned departmental representative appearing for the revenue. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that during the period in dispute various advisors including appellant were working for M/s ACCSL with a belief that their activity does not require any tax compliance as the service recipient M/s ACCSL itself being a financial institution. Under this bonafide belief that the appellant did not get itself registered under service tax nor did deposit the tax. Hence there was no intention to evade the payment of tax. The extended period has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax. With these submissions, the order is prayed to be set aside and the appeal prayed to be allowed. 8. While rebutting the submissions, learned departmental representative has reiterated the findings arrived at by the adjudicating authorities below. Impressing upon no infirmity therein. The appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 9. Having heard appellant at length and rival contentions by learned departmental representative, I observe that initially the demand of Rs. 16,10,317/- was proposed vide impugned show cause notice, however, the demand of Rs. 12,96,358/- has been confirmed by the adjudicating authorities below. I further observe that the said order has dealt with the contentions raised by the appellant in its reply to the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person should have been carried out for another person ; (iii) the activity should have been carried out for a consideration ; (iv) however, the activity as that of transfer of title in goods or immovable property by way of sale of goods of any other manner or the transfer which amounts to sale in terms of Article 366 Clause 29A of the Constitution are excluded to be called as service and the services specifically named in section 66D were exempted from tax liability. 12. Reverting to facts of this appeal the admitted activity of the appellant in the present case is providing advisory/consultancy to M/s ACCSL and various other clients against receiving a commission from them. Section 66D does not cover this activity. It becomes clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for the period April 2014 to September 2014) i.e. 14.11.2014. The impugned show cause notice has been issued after 30 months from 14.11.2014. The reason quoted for invoking extended period is that the appellant has deliberately intentionally not paid the service tax in lieu of providing advisory services. Though the appellant had taken a plea of bonafide belief of no tax liability on said activity, but as already observed above, there was a Notification No. 7/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 clarifying that the commission received by the consultant/advisors is taxable. Appellant is not allowed to plead ignorance of said statutory provision. Failure to get themselves registered despite the said notification is held to positive act of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
