9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business as finance consultant, dealers/DSA for M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. M/s ICICI Ltd. M/s Cholamanglam Ltd, M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., etc for purchase of car, on loan basis, and sale of old & used cares on commission basis and are providing services falling under the definition of Business Auxiliary Services and hold a va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion/brokerage of Rs. 31,43,915/- during the period from October 2004 to March 2005 for which the service tax was payable to the tune of Rs. 2,90,998/-. However, the appellants had paid only Rs. 1,71,565/- during December 2004 to March 2005 towards service tax for the period from October 2004 to March 2005. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,19,433/- was paid also with interest by the appellants durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal. 2. Sh. S.J. Vyas, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that even before the investigation initiated the appellant had paid the substantial amount of service tax, thereafter the balance amount along with interest was paid by 2006. The SCN was issued on 19.10.2006 i.e. after the entire payment of service tax and interest was made. Therefore, in this fact no SCN should hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of SCN. In this fact there was no need to issue any SCN in terms of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, no penalty was imposable. We, therefore, invoking the section 73(3) are of the view that penalties imposed under Section 76 and 78 are not sustainable as this is a case of only delayed payment of service tax which at the most attract interest. Accordingly, we hold that the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
