9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of two appeals. The present appeal is confined to the penalty of Rs. 10,80,780/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty only) imposed by both the authorities under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Briefly the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial institutions and they are arranging facility for the customers and were receiving commission rendering them liable to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. On these allegations, a show-cause notice was issued and after following the due process, the demand was confirmed and the amount of service tax along with interest paid before the issue of show-cause notice and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd further the decisions were rendered by certain CESTAT Bench to the fact that such transactions were not liable for service tax. The appellant has also stated that under such circumstances, he had a bona fide belief that he was not liable to pay service tax and therefore, he should be given the benefit under Section 80 and dropped the penalty. The appellant has relied upon the following decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held that there was confusion on the liability of the service tax on amounts received as incentive from financial institutions and the appellant had a bona fide belief that he is not liable to pay service tax but as and when the Department pointed out they paid the service tax. There is no merit on record that there was a suppression of fact with intent to evade the duty. In view of these circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
