TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion received from banks but were not doing so on finance payments from MUL. IN a letter date d25.10.2004 the appellants had informed the department that the agreement for financing the cars/motor vehicles was between MUL & different banks and service tax was paid directly by the MUL. This is also clear form the clarification note of MUL which is on record – waiver of penalty upheld - 173 OF 2009- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the tax in the month of November, 2006 for the period September, 2004 to March, 2006. Show cause notice was issued on 7.2.2008. The original authority confirmed the demand of tax of Rs. 11,72,392/- and appropriated the amount as deposited by them and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78 of the Act and penalty under Section 76 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n received by the MUL service tax was now payable by the dealers on fees/commission received by them for MF business done on or after 10.9.2004. It further informs the dealers that the service tax paid by them would be reimbursed to them by the MUL. It is the submission of the appellants that they were in the process of calculating the tax, when the audit party visited them and pointed out the lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
