9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing programmes of cooperative development in the country and as per the Policy of the Government, one of their main activity is promoting sugar development fund (SDF) loans at the concessional rate for modernization and rehabilitation of sugar mills. In pursuance of the said activity, the appellants disbursed the said loan to identified industry and obtained the commission for such financial activity. The Revenue entertained a view that such commission earned while disbursing loan will be attracting service tax under the category of business auxiliary services in terms of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. Certain inquires were conducted with the appellant and thereafter proceedings were initiated by issue of two show cause notices, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up with the jurisdictional authorities. However, no clarification of any sort in writing was given to the appellant. The appellant did entertain a bonafide belief regarding their statutory act of disbursing loan not liable to service tax and accordingly they did not pay the service tax now being disputed. c) However, when investigation reached advanced stage, the appellant did start paying the service tax and paid the substantial tax liability. The investigation resulted in present proceedings affirming tax along with interest. The appellant, however, contested the tax liability. d) There can be no case for invoking the extended period and Sections 76 and 78 for imposing penalties as the finding of the authority itself will show that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal authority is influenced by the full payment of tax with interest by the appellant and as such, this cannot be a reason for dropping the demand for extended period. 8. We have heard both the sides and gone through the appeal record. 9. First we considered the merit of tax liability of the appellant. We note that this issue has been examined in detail by the original authority. The fact remains that appellant did disburse the loans to the commercial enterprises in furtherance of their business and they did get the commission. This is not been disputed. Claim of the party that this is a statutory act and cannot be covered by tax liability is not accepted. Commission received and accounted at the end of appellant as commission income a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
