9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The unit also obtained Service Tax Registration No.AAACK2599ST003 for the category "Transport of goods by Road Services". They are availing the facility of Cenvat credit as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of EA-2000 Audit, it was noticed by the department that during the period of 2005-06 to 2008-09, the unit paid Rs.5,14,060/- as Commission for sales of their export goods and also paid Rs.3,66,394/- for advertisement charges to foreign firms viz. the person from country other than India. Audit raised an objection that the unit being the recipient of such service, therefore, is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 29.04.2010 was issued demanding service tax of Rs.98,223/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submission that there was a confusion as regards the services availed by the appellant and it could be termed as an importer of service into India. It is his submission that the service tax imposed on the appellant be set aside. 6. Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) would on the other hand submit that the appellant has not brought to the notice of the department regarding the payment of commission on export sales as well as the advertising expenses incurred by him at Hong Kong are for the marketing of their products. It is his submission that if appellant was in doubt, he could have got in touch with the department and could have got matters clarified, having not done so, he is not eligible to the benefit of revenue neutrality. It is his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egards the service tax liability of Rs.45,286/-, I find that the appellant has discharged the entire amount of service tax liability with interest after the issuance of show cause notice but before the adjudication. As the adjudicating authority has already appropriated this amount I find that the imposition of penalty under Section 76 on the appellant on this amount is incorrect as the said service tax liability has arisen on 16.01.09. Hence penalty imposed under Section 76 on this amount is liable to be set aside and I do so. 13. As regards the equivalent amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 on the said amount, I find that appellant's contention as to the revenue neutrality is on a strong wicket, in as much as it is undisputed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
