2015 (6) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 and Appeal No. ST/778/008-CU[DB] filed by Revenue against the same Order-in-Appeal. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under : The appellants were authorised dealers of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. and registered under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. It was found on scrutiny of their records that during the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 they had received commission from banks as well as insurance companies and also received some payments from M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. It was alleged in the Show Cause Notice dated 28-5-2007 that the said amounts were liable to Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service and extended period was invocable due ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly with the procedure. The Revenue has filed appeal against the said Order-in-Appeal on the ground that the appellants did not deposit the impugned Service Tax on their own and did so only after the evasion was detected by the Department and that the penalty under Section 76 doesn't require mens rea and therefore the benefit of Section 80 should not have been extended to the appellant with regard to penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. In their appeal the appellants have contended that the commission received by them from banks and insurance companies was not classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service as they had only provided table space to their (i.e. banks' and insurance companies') representatives an....