9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lad, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Nagaraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the respondent [Order per: Sugekha Beevi, [C.S.] The issue involved in the above appeals being the same, were heard together and disposed by this common order. The issue posing for consideration is whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the commission paid by them for the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any fact relating to the activities undertaken during the period from 09/07/2004 to 12/11/2007 from the Department. The appellant was under the bona fide belief that the services received from the overseas agents were not liable to service tax. b. Appellants place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Texyard International Vs. CCE, Trichy [2015(40) STR 322 (Tri.-Chenna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to service tax. Therefore there was reasonable cause for failure, if any, on part of the appellant to pay service tax and to file service tax return. Hence, in terms of Section 80 of the Act, penalties cannot be imposed under Sections 77 & 78. 3.2. It was also painted out by the learned counsel that the demand in appeal No. ST/254/2010 is partly barred by limitation and that the issue being c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax prior to the period 18/04/2006 and the demands in respect of the period prior to 18/04/2006 is set aside. It is also seen that part of the demand in the above appeals falls outside the normal period. The issue being interpretational and as divergent views were prevailing during that period, we hold that the extended period is not invokable. At this point, learned counsel submits that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l reliefs, as per law. b. in respect of appeal No-ST/254/2010, the demand beyond limitation period is set aside and only demand of Rs. 3,50,817/- for the period 01/04/2007 to 12/11/2007 which is within the limitation period is upheld. Demand confirmed in the impugned order is modified to this extent. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the penalties imposed in the impugned order are set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
