TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted by the appellants, we find they are right in contesting the penalty and also the invocation of extended period. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/00328/2009 - Final Order No. 42020/2017 - Dated:- 8-9-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi CS, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Ms. Cynduja Krishnan, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) ORDER The appeal is against order dated 19.03.2009 of Commissioner (Appeals), Salem. The appellants are dealers in motor vehicles engaged in display and sale of cars manufactured by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as M/s. MUL ]. During the course of their business, they have permitted certain Insurance Companies and Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e themselves registered with the department for payment of service tax under the category of Authorised Dealer and they started paying service tax in Business Services, for the present disputed income with effect from 10.09.2004. From that date onwards, they have been receiving consideration directly from these Insurance Companies/Financial Institutions. Prior to that date, there was an element of ambiguity as the appellants were receiving a part of the consideration from M/s. MUL and M/s. MUL discharged service tax on full consideration, The appellants did not pay any service tax on this portion. It is the case of the appellants, this is not an act of willful suppression and they were discharging service tax on various services and non-pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The appellants are praying only for waiver of penalty under section 78 and also limiting the tax demand to the normal period. This will involve only the examination of suppression, willful mis-statement, fraud, collusion etc., on the part of the appellants justifying the Revenue's action of invoking extended period. The impugned order didn't at all disclose the justification for extended period in spite of contest by the appellants. In fact, the only observation is that penalty of ₹ 15,00,000/-is justifiable as the appellants have suppressed the fact that they have received the amount from M/s. MUL. They paid service tax after being pointed out by the department. We find these observations cannot form a sound reasoning for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
