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, Aurangabad Versus Ratnaprabha Motors

2016 (6) TMI 237 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Demand of Service tax prior to 06.11.2006 - Commission received from various financial institutions - Held that:- the similar issue was decided by the Apex Court in the case of Jaiprakash Inds. Ltd. vs. CCE [2002 (11) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Suchitra components vs. CCE [2007 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Therefore, we are of the view that First Appellate Authority has correctly followed the ratio of the Apex Court and the Board circular and confirms the demand post 06.11.2006 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

R.K. Das, DC (AR) For the Respondent Shri R.S. Indani, Advocate (AR) ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AGS (14) 133/2010 dated 11.01.2010. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. Against the very same Order-in-Appeal the assessee had filed an appeal which was disposed of by this bench by order no. A/2700/15/STB dated 12.08.2015 upholding the demand which was not contested by the assessee and set aside the demand in respect of commission receiv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

far as the same in respect of 8 (i) above are concerned. Nowhere in the proceedings the appellant had denied the service tax liability. They are only raising the classification issue by contending that their activity would fall under Business Support Service . It is a fact that up to 06.11.2006 the classification of services provided by the appellant was not decided. It was finally decided by the Board vide their above mentioned circular dated 06.11.2006 as Business Auxiliary Service. Therefore, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court would be that the demand raised prior to 06.10.2007 would be hit by limitation and is time barred. Further, when the demand is hit by limitation i.e. proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not invocable, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not impossible. Therefore, the penalty imposed needs to be set aside. 10. In respect of activity discussed above in para 8(ii) i.e. profit share received from AutomartIndia .....

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