Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 846 - CESTAT DELHI

2016 (1) TMI 846 - CESTAT DELHI - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 507 (Tri. - Del.) - 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 raise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s appeal allowed except that penalty under section 76 is set aside and 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/13 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the Finance Act, 1994 was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

raised the issue of time bar. There was no wilful mis-statement or suppression 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 ben .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gement in the case of CCE & ST, BBSR-I vs. Sanfin- 2009 (13) STR 551 (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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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