9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain enquiries were initiated against the appellant in January 2011 to ascertain their tax liability under category of business Auxiliary Service (BAS). After enquiry a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand and recovery an amount of Rs. 46,57,146/- and to impose penalties under various Sections of Finance Act, 1994. The case covered period from 01/10/2006 to 30/09/2011/-. The demand was adjudicated by the Original Authority to confirm a demand of Rs. 44,04,621/-, after allowing cum tax benefit to the appellant. Penalty equal to the tax amount has also imposed alongwith penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order rejected the appeal and upheld the origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in even providing the basic details regarding amounts received from the bank and other financial records when called for by the Department. There is no prevalent confusion regarding tax liability of the services rendered by the appellant and there is no question of bonafide belief in this case. 5. The admitted fact is that there is no specific challenge regarding the tax liability of the appellant during the material period. The appellant are liable to service tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' The relief sought is with reference to penalty. The main ground on which the penalty was sought to be set aside is that the appellant had reasonable cause for not paying service tax during the material time. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellant's plea that their payment of the sub-agents should be deducted from the gross value is also not supported by any legal provisions. To invoke the provisions of Section 80 the appellant should show reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax in time. As revealed by the discussion above, no such reasonable cause could be established in the present case. The taxability of the service rendered by the appellant is not subject matter of doubt or interpretation during the material time. In fact the Board's clarification issued on 20/06/2003 itself makes it clear that there is no room for doubt for the period subsequent to the said clarification. 6. Considering the above discussion and analysis, I find no merit in the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
