TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by FSL on being sponsored by the distributor. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - when there is scope for doubt in the mind of an assessee on a particular issue, the longer limitation period, under proviso to Section 11 A(1) cannot be invoked - demand has been restricted to the normal time limit. The issue is remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for restricting the demand strictly in terms of the observations and directions in this order - penalty set aside - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No.813 of 2011, 986 of 2011 and 1003 of 2011 - ST/A/55817-55819/2016-CU[DB] - Dated:- 13-12-2016 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri S.K. Sarwal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marketing activities permitted by the petitioner but is dividend paid to A for his efforts for introducing the scheme to new introduces who also become distributors of FSL. 2. Revenue took the view that the commission earned by the appellant from FSL is liable for service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services classifiable under Section 65 (19)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994. Show cause notices were issued and service tax demand to the tune of ₹ 2,91,699/-, ₹ 2,16,455/- and ₹ 2,47,586/- were confirmed against the appellants along with interest and penalties. When this order of the Original Authority was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), the same was upheld. Hence, the present appeals. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istributor (such as the appellant ) on the products purchased by his sales group. However, it has been held that the service tax is not leviable on the commission earned by the distributor on the basis of the volume of the purchases made by the group of second level of distributors appointed by FSL on being sponsored by the distributor. 7. The demand also has been restricted to the normal time limit. The operative part of the above decision is reproduced below:- When, on the issue involved in this group of cases, there were two views in the Department itself, it cannot be said that on the question as to whether the activity of the assessees was taxable under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
