9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices", as defined under Clause 65(105)(zm) read with Section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 10-9-2004. It appears that in September 2005, the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Indore conducted enquiries with the respondent and was of the view that their activities would attract service tax under Section 65(105)(zm) read with Section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Respondent were accordingly asked to furnish details regarding the application fee and upfront fee collected by them from their customers. The Respondent in November 2005 submitted the required details on the basis of which their service tax liability came to Rs. 20,24,787/-. They, however, informed that while they have paid an amount of Rs. 10,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 76 and 78 except for upholding the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 for not filing the return by the due date. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty under Sections 76 and 78, the department has filed this appeal and the Respondent have filed cross objection. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri Sunil Kumar, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, assailed the impugned order setting aside the penalty on the Respondent under Sections 76 and 78 by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that since the service tax liability was not discharged by the Respondent by the due date, penalty under Section 76 would be attracted and since the respondent during the period of dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving been made under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, has rightly held that penal proceedings were not called for and that in view of this, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 4. There is no dispute that the Respondent is a Government of Madhya Pradesh Undertaking and the period of dispute is from 10-9-2004 to 30-9-2005, immediately after the period when the Respondent's activity got covered under 'banking and financial services' and became taxable. We find that as soon as the department pointed out to the Respondent that their activity would attract service tax, they not only furnished the entire required information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
