9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with appeal has been filed against order-in-appeal dated 18.11.2013 which upheld the order-in-original dated 23.4.2013 except to the extent of setting aside penalty under Section 77(1)(a) of Finance Act, 1994. In other words, the impugned order upheld the service tax demand of Rs. 3,04,985/- for the period April 2008 to Sept. 2011 along with interest and penalty (under Section 78 ibid) on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... promoting the business of the banks/insurance companies which financed/insured the vehicles and that earlier it had claimed that it was not receiving any rent from these bank/companies. As regards, the contention that demand is time barred. The ld. DR stated that the appellant never disclosed the fact and therefore the extended period is invocable. 4. We have considered the contentions of both s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the issue involves proper analysis of the nature of transactions to precisely determine whether the activity fell within the scope of business auxiliary service as also whether there was indeed mis-statement or suppression of facts. In the circumstances, we are of the view that pre-deposit of 50% of adjudicated service tax liability with proportionate interest within four weeks would meet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
