2015 (9) TMI 160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. 2. The appellant had availed lending services from service providers based abroad namely, Lehmann and IFC who acted as the Mandated Lead Arrangers, Facility Agents and lenders in relation to Economic Commercial Borrowings (ECB). The fees paid by the appellant in foreign exchange to the lenders abroad as management fees, facility agent fees and appraisal fees was held to be liable to service tax under the category of 'Banking and other Financial Services' defined under section 65 (12) (a) (ix) read with section 65(105)(zm) in terms of sections 66A and 68 (2) on reverse charge basis as recipient of the taxable service. The demand was confirmed for the period July 07 to Dec 07 under section 73 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Department and the tax was paid only thereafter. The belief of the appellant is malafide rather than bonafide. According to him penalty is imposable in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner versus KitPly Industries Ltd. 2011 (267) ELT 289 (SC). 6. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and considered the submissions of both sides. It is undisputed that the service tax was paid by the appellant after the issue of the show cause notice and before the passing of the adjudication order. The appellant relies heavily on the judgement cited. Revenue relies on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Kitply Industries (supra). We note that the Apex court, after considering the Larger B....