TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational and there was reasonable cause for the failure to pay tax, the penalties imposed are set aside. Demand of ₹ 41,820/- under C&F Agent Service - Held that:- Following the ratio in Kulcip Medicines (P) Ltd. [2009 (2) TMI 89 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], the demand is unsustainable and requires to be set aside - Demand set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. ST/251/2010, ST/269/2010, ST/595/2010 - Final Order Nos. 42298-42300/2018 - Dated:- 21-8-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench All these appeals relate to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Nos.. ST/251/2010 and ST/269/2010. The appellant had paid up the amount of ₹ 1,74,782/- along with interest of ₹ 19,545/- totaling to ₹ 2,03,355/-. They preferred refund claim for the said amount, which was rejected by the original authority vide order dated 31.10.2008. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence Appeal No. ST/595/2010. 3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing ld. counsel Shri Hari Radhakrishnan submitted that they are not contesting the demand of ₹ 1,02,139/- under Intellectual Property Right relating to appeal No. ST/251/2010. However, the appellant is praying for relief from penalties on the ground that the dispute is one of interpretation. 3.1 In respect of Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . So ordered. 6.1 In respect of Appeal No. ST/269/2010, the service tax demand on Intellectual Property Right has also been conceded for the normal period. The said demand has already been confirmed and the extended period has been set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 113 114/2010 dated 31.3.2010, against which the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed on monetary grounds by the Tribunal. We find that it is not the case that the appellant had informed the department about these transactions in ER-I returns. This being so, the extended period, in our view, can very well be invoked and hence the entire demand of service tax of ₹ 1,74,782/- with interest thereon is not being interfered with. However, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
