TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the show cause notice, the issue is fully covered in favour of the appellant vide CESTAT/High Court orders in the cases of R.B. Agencies vs. C.C.E., Calicut - [2007 (7) TMI 200 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] and Martend Foods and Dehydrates - [2013 (6) TMI 339 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] and Commissioner vs. Daya Shankar Kailash Chand - [2015 (8) TMI 1007 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No.413 of 2009 - Final Order No. 52871/2015 - Dated:- 10-9-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram, President and Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member, JJ. For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent : Present Shri Ranjan Khanna, A.R. ORDER Per R.K. Singh: Appeal has been filed against O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods but did not pay service tax on the commission received on initial activation, target achievement bonus, customer loyalty bonus, feet on street and also commission on the payment of collection etc. The show cause notice required the appellant to show cause as to why:- i) the unpaid service tax amount on these services should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions contained in Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for service tax) along with interest on the delayed payment as applicable in terms of Section 75 ibid; ii) penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 75 A (erstwhile Rule), 76, 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for Service Tax). 3. The primary adjudicating authority after going thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I drop the proceedings initiated against the noticee, vide show cause notice No. IV(16)ST/SCN/956/BAS/HQ /PKL/ 2005/2317 dated 8.6.2005; The Revisionary Authority vide the impugned order differed with the primary adjudicating authority and held that in terms of the conditions laid down between the appellant and the telecom company the appellant was providing Business Auxiliary Service and accordingly passed the impugned order reproduced earlier. 4. When the case was taken up for hearing today, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. The intimation for hearing was sent by registered post which has been received back with the postal remark refused to take. Accordingly we proceed to decide the appeal itself on merits. 5. In its gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
