TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice tax and, therefore, upheld the demand. It needs to be pointed out that even as per the self assessment by the appellant in its ST-3 returns, the appellant had rendered business auxiliary services; the amount received for these services and the tax payable were also indicated. There was no doubt in the minds of either the appellant or the officers that the settled legal position was that the activities of the appellant were exigible to service tax. It is for this reason that the appellant had obtained service tax registration, self-assessed the amount of service tax payable and had also filed ST-3 returns accordingly. However, the appellant failed to deposit the service tax. It is not open for the appellant to now say that his activiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns declaring the taxable value and the service tax payable but had not paid service tax, as required. On further scrutiny of ST-3 returns for the period April 2011 to June 2012 it was noticed that the appellant had not filed ST-3 returns within the prescribed time limit and had also not paid the late fee for delayed filing of ST-3 returns. 4. Accordingly, a show cause notice [SCN] dated 11.03.2014 was issued to the appellant calling upon him to explain as to why service tax amounting to Rs. 3,06,647/- should not be recovered from him with interest and why late fee of Rs. 34,700/- should not be recovered from him under section 70 of the Finance Act read with Rule 7C for the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and why penalties should not be imposed und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment and had filed ST-3 returns indicating the amount received and tax payable but failed to pay the service tax even after the SCN was issued. He, therefore, found that there was deliberate disregard for law by the appellant. He upheld the confirmation of demand, interest, late fee and imposition of penalties. 8. In this appeal before us the following grounds have been taken :- (a) The order-in-appeal is erroneous and was passed without appreciating the facts of the case ; (b) Neither the SCN nor order-in-original defines business auxiliary services nor indicates under which clause of the expression the appellant falls ; (c) The amounts earned by the appellant through the multi level marketing scheme is in the form of profit and is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the activities of the appellant are chargeable to service tax and, therefore, upheld the demand. It needs to be pointed out that even as per the self assessment by the appellant in its ST-3 returns, the appellant had rendered business auxiliary services; the amount received for these services and the tax payable were also indicated. In other words, there was no doubt in the minds of either the appellant or the officers that the settled legal position was that the activities of the appellant were exigible to service tax. It is for this reason that the appellant had obtained service tax registration, self-assessed the amount of service tax payable and had also filed ST-3 returns accordingly. However, the appellant failed to deposit the ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
