9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1994. In addition, penalty stands imposed under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants deals with various cosmetics, home care, and health care products etc. They are registered with jurisdictional Service Tax authorities for payment of various services being rendered by them. The demand in the present appeal stands confirmed on the ground that the appellant has provided franchise services to various distributors appointed by them under distribution agreement. 3. It is seen that the appellants were issued a show cause notice on 12-3-2009 alleging that for appointing dealers to sell their products, they have earned income under the heading 'subscription fee', which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. The appellants also contested on merits by submitting that the DGCEI conducted a search of their premises in the 2005 and investigated the matter. Thereafter, the proceedings were dropped against them. As such, it cannot be held that they suppressed any information from the department so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. 6. The adjudicating authority did not find favour with the appellants contention on merits as also on limitation and confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. 7. After hearing both sides, we find that the distributors are appointed by the Company for buying the goods from them and selling the same to the home consumers or to sell the same to the dealers who may be further appointed by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue's case that the agreement examined by Audit and by DGCEI were different. The DGCEI authorities having examined the distribution agreement and on being satisfied did not proceed ahead in the year 2005. As such, the issuance of show cause notice in 2009 invoking the longer period of limitation cannot be said to be a valid show cause notice. As such, we are of the view that the appellants have a good case on limitation also. Apart from the above, the appellants have deposited a part amount of Rs. 33 lakhs approximately, Rs. 12.99 lakhs approximately and Rs. 1.60 crores approximately. By treating the same as sufficient for the purpose of Section 35, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of duties and penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
