9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short remittance of tax and ordered recovery thereof along with interest. He also confirmed a demand of Rs. 3,408/- on the ground of wrong availment of cenvat credit and directed its recovery along with interest. The primary authority confirmed the levy of interest of Rs. 2,088/- for delayed remittance of service tax and appropriated an amount of Rs. 2,087/- which the appellant/assessee had already remitted towards this interest component. Apart from this, the primary authority imposed penalties of Rs. 3,408/-, Rs. 76,125/- and 32,800/- under Section 76 of the Act. Against this order, the assessee has preferred this appeal. 3. The relevant facts may be noticed. On 14.1.2005, the appellant entered into an agreement with Aptech Limited, a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to Aptech Ltd. and 80% shall be paid by the authorized representative of Aptech to the appellant. 4. The appellant remitted service tax on the consideration received by it from escrow account aforementioned at appropriate rates and in accordance with law. This fact is not under dispute. The appellant also contended in proceedings before the lower authorities that Aptech had remitted service tax on the 20% of the amount received by it from the escrow account. 5. Proceedings were initiated by a show cause notice dated 19.4.2006 alleging that the appellant was required to remit service tax on the whole of the course fee received for providing the taxable "commercial coaching and training" service i.e. on the whole of the course fee receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imedia" and is credited into the escrow account of Aptech Ltd. The authorized representative of Aptech Ltd. is required under the terms of the franchise agreement to disburse the course fee credited into the escrow account between Aptech Ltd. and the appellant, in the proportion agreed to between the parties under the said agreement. Accordingly, the appellant received 80% of the course fee and 20% by Aptech Ltd., as its royalty under the franchise agreement. 8. In the factual scenario as is clear from the transactional instrument namely, the franchise agreement dated 14.1.2005 it is clear that the consideration received by the appellant for rendition of commercial training and coaching service is only 80% , on which the appellant remitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
