9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Rajeev Gupta & Shri Tarun Kumar, Authorised Representatives for the Respondent ORDER PER P.V SUBBA RAO: 1. The appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department for rendering intellectual property service and they have been depositing service tax under various heads. The Department conducted an audit between 04.09.2008 to 08.09.2008 covering the period 2006-07 to 2007- 08. Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the demand as proposed and imposed penalties. However, he refrained from imposing any penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act as a penalty has been imposed under Section 78. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant points out that it is true that they have incurred expenses which were booked under head of foreign expenses by them. To the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the impugned order, we find that the appellant has not been put to notice alleging that they have either rendered a taxable service which made them liable to pay service tax or have received any taxable service from overseas service provider, which rendered them liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. As the show cause notice is very vague and wants to charge service tax only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice are true, the department could have undertaken more serious investigations using all the powers available to the officers under the law including taking legal action against anyone dishonouring the summons. However, this cannot be a ground to issue a show cause notice without clarifying under what head the tax has to be paid and for which taxable services received by the appellant. The impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
