TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Limits Demand Period for Commission Income</h1> The tribunal restricted the demand to the normal limitation period from the date of the Show Cause Notice, with applicable interest, for income received ... Extended period of limitation - tax liability along with interest paid after being pointed out by audit - Penalty u/s 77 and 78 of FA - Held that:- The issue of taxability on the impugned services was mired in litigation and was set to rest only by the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Pagariya Auto Center Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad, [2014 (2) TMI 98 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] - Especially when there was confusion on this issue, nothing prevented the Department from having issued Show Cause Notices at regular intervals for the normal period of limitation. The demand in this case is restricted to the normal period of limitation from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice, with interest liability as applicable - there shall be no penalty - appeal allowed in part. Issues:Income received as commission from banks and financial institutions for promoting loan schemes, demand confirmation, penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, appeal rejection by Commissioner (Appeals), limitation period for demand, imposition of penalties.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the dispute concerning the income received by the appellants as commission from banks and financial institutions for promoting two-wheeler loan schemes. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of &8377; 19,21,070/- along with interest and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading the appellants to appeal before the forum.The appellant's advocate argued that while they do not contest the case on merits, the demand should be limited to the normal period of limitation due to the ongoing litigation on the issue. He relied on legal precedents such as Brij Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Addis Marketing to support this stance. On the contrary, the respondent's representative supported the impugned order, highlighting that the appellants settled their tax liability only after being alerted by an audit.The tribunal carefully considered the facts and legal arguments presented. It noted that the issue of taxability of the services in question was previously contentious and was resolved by a decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Pagariya Auto Center. Despite the appellants' contention that the matter surfaced post-audit, the tribunal emphasized that the Department could have issued Show Cause Notices within the normal limitation period, especially given the existing confusion on the issue.Relying on the precedent set by Brij Motors Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal decided to restrict the demand to the normal limitation period from the date of the Show Cause Notice, along with applicable interest. Consequently, no penalties were imposed in line with the decision. The tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application for change in C.T. and granted the appeal with consequential benefits as per the law.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the taxability of the commission income received by the appellants and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the normal limitation period for demands in cases where legal interpretations are unsettled.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
