2010 (7) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;   Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate (i/b P.M. Dave, Advocate), for the Appellant. Shri R. Nagar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The appellant entered into an agreement with M/s. Fascal Ltd., Ahmedabad to market their products as distributor. From July 2003, business auxiliary services were brought under service tax net and the department has taken a view that the ser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his contention that the service was brought into service tax net for the first time in July 2003 and appellant being a proprietorship concern was not aware of the introduction of service tax and his liability under the category of business auxiliary service. Even though it has been stated that the department received the details of services provided on 10-9-04 from the service receiver, the fact t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e for relief under the provisions of Section 73 only if they have deposited Service tax, interest and penalty to the extent of 25% of the service tax. Since the appellant paid the service tax only after investigation started, a lenient view under Section 80 is not called for. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Appellant is a proprietorship concern and he acted as ....