2016 (8) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant was required to pay services under reverse charges mechanism. It is not a case where the appellant is providing some service and required to pay service tax thereon. In that circumstances, benefit of doubt goes in favor of the appellant, therefore, the charges of suppression of facts cannot be alleged on the appellant - provisions of section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 are attract .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... June' 2010 along with interest. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for appropriation of the amount already paid as service tax along with interest and to impose penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Both the lower authorities have confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 199 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the fact that the commission paid to foreign based commission agents which tantamount to suppression of facts. In that circumstances, provisions of section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 are not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, both the authorities below has rightly imposed penalty on the appellant. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X