9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m The respondent adjudicating authority by the order dated 4.6.2012 dropped proceedings initiated for levy of service tax of Rs.2,95,721/-. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for having failed to disclose the consideration received for providing taxable advertising services during the period October 2006 to March 2010, from M/s Rajasthan Samvad, a Government of Rajasthan instrument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity concluded that under the provisions of Section 65(2) and (3) read with Section 65(105) (e) of the Finance Act, 1994, the petitioner is liable to remit service tax as the provider; the petitioner failed to remit the tax due with an intention to evade; the petitioner failed to remit the tax due with an intention to evade; and that the fact that M/s Rajasthan Samvad may be entitled to cenvat cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, it cannot claim immunity on the ground that M/s Rajasthan Samvad had in any event remitted the tax on the gross amounts received by it, part of which was paid to the petitioner as commission, under agreements entered into between the petitioner and M/s Rajasthan Samvad. It requires to be noticed that Commissioner (Appeals) does not impose any penal liability. 4. On the aforesaid analysis, we r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
