9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent Per: V. Padmanabhan: The present appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 145/2012 dated 26.07.2012. 2. The appellant, during the period 2004-05 and 2005-06 acted as an agent of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Limited and ICICI Housing Finance Limited and for service rendered, received commission. The Revenue was of the view that the commission received will be liable to payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the service has already been paid by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company. Hence, it is submitted that the levy of service tax once again on the appellant is not justified. She further submits that in any case, the penalties under both Sections 76 and 78 is not leviable in view of the decision of the CCE vs. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana - 2011 (24) STR 173 (P&H). 5. Ld. AR appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ramawat Construction Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-II (Final Order Nos. 53206 - 53207/2017 dated 12.05.2017). 6. We have heard both sides and perused the record. The dispute in the present case is with reference to the liability for service tax under BAS, in respect of the commission earn by the appellant for selling of ICICI Prudential Life policy as well as lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower authorities that the demand can be raised under the extended period of limitation. 8. On the issue of penalties, we have considered the rival submissions and both the sides relied on different case laws. We note that the recent judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ramawat Construction Co. (supra) is application to the facts of the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
