2011 (2) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oreign based firms. During the period from 16.6.2005 to 29.2.2008, they paid totally sum of Rs.25,62,777/- as commission. A show cause notice dt. 11.11.2008 was issued alleging that the respondents, as recipient of the services were required to pay service tax of Rs.3,10,446/- along with interest and that they are liable to penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Original authority confirmed the demand as proposed in the SCN and imposed penalties of Rs.3,10,446/- under Section 78 and Rs.5000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act. However, he refrained from imposing penalty under Section 76.   3.2. On appeal by the party, Commissioner (Appeals) held that   a) no service tax is payable by the respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....007 and quantifying penalties under Section 76 & 77 inasmuch as he does not have power of remand after amendment of Section 35A (3) w.e.f. 11.5.2001. In this regard, he relies on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. Vs CCE Noida [2007 (210) ELT 188 (SC)].   5.1. Ld. advocate for the respondent strongly supports the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He seeks leave to introduce certain documents stating that the issue relating to liability of service tax on commission paid by the respondent was under investigation by three different agencies.   5.2. The Superintendent (Preventive), Virudhunagar Division issued a letter dt. 15.2.2006 from File No.C.No.IV/16/75/2005-Prev. seeking details of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to amendment is correct. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) against invoking extended period of limitation should not be interfered with. He also fairly concedes that as the power of remand is not available to the Commissioner (Appeals), the duty liability within the normal period of limitation could have been arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) himself.   6. Ld. DR, in his rejoinder, submits that the letter dt. 15.2.2006 from the Superintendent to the respondent and replies thereto, summon dt. 18.4.06 issued by Senior Intelligence Officer to the respondent and the replies thereto are being produced for the first time before the Tribunal and he is not in a position to make submission on the veracity of the same.  ....