TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Shri P. S. Bedi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Harvinder Singh, AR ORDER Per: Devender Singh The brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. Vidya Enterprises, are engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Services to M/s.Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Karnal by way of selling sugar on their behalf. The service so provided is defined under section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter, the Act) as taxable service and under section 65 (105) (zzb) of the Act ibid. They had received an amount of ₹ 9,75,752/- as commission during the period 09.7.2004 to 31.3.2005, as per details supplied vide letters dated 18.10.2005 by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. 2. Learned Advocate submits that they are only contesting penalties. He contended that the service tax on the commission agent service had just been imposed from 09.07.2004 and they were under the bonafide belief that the bargain discounts given to the dealers were not included in the assessable value as they were deducting the same for the purpose of income tax. He further argued that no evidence has been cited by the Commissioner in his revision order in support of his finding of suppression of facts. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner has taken the correct view as the service tax had just been introduced. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Darmania Enterprises-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. It is apposite to notice that against similar order dated 31-3-2008, passed by the Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee-respondent, namely M/s. Darmania Telecom, Gurdaspur, the revenue has also preferred an appeal, bearing S.T.A. No. 6 of 2008 [2009 (14) S.T.R. 145 (P H)] . The aforementioned appeal came up for consideration before us on 12-2-2009 and the same has been dismissed by observing as under :- Having heard learned counsel for the revenue we are of the view that the provisions of Section 80 of the Act in un-mistakable terms provide that despite the provisions of Section 78, no penalty should be imposed on the assessee for any failure referred in that section if the assessee has shown that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
