9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant was dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of the reasons explained, the order dismissing the appeal is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. 3. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby a demand of Rs.69,14,614/- is confirmed with interest. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77and 78 of the Finance Act. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... desh High Court in the case of Karvy Securities Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 2006 (2) STR 481 (AP). The contention is that in view of this confusion in the service sectors, the appellants were under the bona fide belief that as the appellants are receiving only commission in respect of sale of bonds etc., the appellants are not liable for service tax in view of the provisions of Notification 13/2003-S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring Amnesty Scheme, the appellants deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 2004. However, subsequently, the appellant had not complied with the conditions of the Amnesty Scheme hence the appellants were aware that the service tax is leviable on the activity undertaken by the appellants hence the penalties are rightly imposed. 7. We find that the appellants are only challenging the imposition of pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Further, we find that the Tribunal in the case of CST vs. P.N. Vijay Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (12) STR 628 held that mutual fund units being goods as per the definition of Section 65(5) of the Finance Act read with Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, stand at par with the stock and share and the same are to be treated as goods. In view of the above decision, we find mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
