Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE, Chandigarh Versus Patiala Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd.

2016 (1) TMI 846 - CESTAT DELHI

Marketing and advertising activities undertaken for ICICI Bank - Business Auxiliary Service or Not - Commissioner (Appeals) held that services rendered did not fall under BAS - Extended period of limitation - Levy of penalty - Held that:- neither at the time of adjudication at the primary level nor at the first appellate level, the issue of time bar was raised, though it being a mixed question of fact and law, it can be raised at this stage. However, we find that the nature of service rendered w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty under section 78 is reduced to 25% of ₹ 5,82,025/- provided the respondent pays the entire amount of service tax alongwith interest and reduced (25% of ₹ 582025/-) penalty within 30 days of receipt of this order. It is clarified that amount already paid towards the impugned demand /interest penalty will be counted for this purpose. - Decided in favor of Revenue. - Appeal No.ST/266/09-CUS (DB) With ST/CO/133/2009 - FINAL ORDER NO. 53783/2015 - Dated:- 19-11-2015 - Mr.R.K.Singh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at services rendered did not fall under Business Auxiliary Service (Section 65 (19) ibid) under which the demand was confirmed by the primary adjudicating authority. 2. Revenue has contended that the service rendered fell under Business Auxiliary Service as is clear from the agreement of the appellant with ICICI Bank in terms of which the appellant was appointed for marketing its product and was also allowed to undertake the responsibility for advertising in the area of his operation in terms of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pression and therefore demand is time barred he argued. There was confusion regarding classification as is evident from the judgement in the case of Wings Group of Companies vs. CST, Bangalore-2008 (12) STR 287 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein it was held that the demand cannot be confirmed under Business Auxiliary Services. He also pleaded that if penalty under section 78 is upheld, penalty under section 76 should not be imposed and benefit of reduced (25%) penalty should be extended. 4. We have considered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1 (Tri.-Kolkata). Learned Counsel for the respondent does not contest classification of the service under BAS in the wake of judgment of CESTAT in case of Sanfin (Supra). However, he has pleaded that in view of the fact that there was confusion about classification extended period can not be invoked. As regards the issue of time bar, it is a combined question of law and fact. We find that the respondent has already deposited an amount of ₹ 4,19,882/- and that amount has already been approp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version