2011 (2) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Commissioner (Appeals) No. 456/2010 dated 29.9.2010. 2. Heard the learned SDR. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. 3. The original authority confirmed demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,52,212/- relating to the period Dec. 2004 to August, 2007 along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ates to setting aside penalties, and restore the order of the original authority in full. 5. I find that the respondents were acting as an authorized dealer of M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd. They were also arranging loan facility to their customers for purchase of vehicles through Banks and non-banking Finance companies and for such services they had received commission amounting to Rs.13,87,083/- during ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar dated 6.11.2006, did not sustain the penalties imposed by the original authority. 6. The submission of the learned SDR is that the circular only clarifies the legal position as it was existing and, therefore, the question of applying the circular only from date of circular does not arise. This is valid. However, the circular dated 6.11.2006 of the Board clearly recognizes doubt prevalent in ....