9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of various products of M/s. B.S.N.L, which allegedly fall under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" (BAS) in terms of Section 65(105) (zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 which defines the term taxable service for 'Business Auxiliary' Service as "taxable service" means any service provided or to be provided to a client by any person in relation to Business Auxiliary Service. 2.2. Based on an information that M/s. B.S.N.L., Muzaffar Nagar is paying commission to their Franchisees, are not paying service tax on the commission received for providing the taxable category of service-promotion/marketing of various products of M/s. B.S.N.L. Officers of Anti Evasion, Central Excise Division, Muzaffar Nagar asked M/s. B.S.N.L., Muzaffar N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 73(1) of the Act along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. A penalty of Rs. 200/- per day or 2% per month (whichever is higher) was imposed under Section 76, Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 and Rs. 14,30,559/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed upon the party. 2.5. Being aggrieved with the impugned Order-in-Original, the respondent filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut-l. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. Appeal-I, MRT/MRT/39-ST/2014 dated 16.12.2014 has observed that M/s BSNL has paid service tax on the face value of SIM cards, Recharge Coupons etc. The Commissioner (Appeals) mainly relied on the CESTAT, decision in the case of M/s G.R. Movers Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty is not imposable as there is no evidence of deliberate defiance of law. 5. The Id. C.A., Shri Abhinav Kalra, appearing for the Respondent, relies on the impugned order and prays for dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the present matter is no longer res-integra and the same is decided in favour of the Respondent by the precedent decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s South East Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax reported in [2009] 22 STT 446 (Bang.-CESTAT). Respectfully following the ratio of the said judgement, we dismiss the present appeal filed by the Revenue and set aside the impugned order. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
