2016 (7) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anufacturers of Footwear falling under Chapter 64 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. During the scrutiny of their records, it was noticed that they had paid Rs. 3,88,74,564/- for the period from 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2008 as Sales Commission to various commercial concerns situated outside India for rendering the service which inter alia liaison with overseas buyers with respect to seasonal equipment, current and expected styles for the ensuing seasons, quality parameters, delivery schedule, price etc Thus, it appeared that as per Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Sales Tax Rules, 1994, the respondent being the recipient of the Business Auxiliary Service (BAS, for short) provided by a person from abroad, was liable to pay service on the BAS received b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ission paid to overseas agents till 30.1.2009. They paid the installment of Rs. 17,23,400/- and Rs. 9,11,499/- only on 5.2.2009. The failure of respondent of non-payment of tax would not have come to light had the departmental officers not verified the documents and other details. Therefore, invocation of extended period is justifiable in this case. The learned adjudicating authority is right in imposing a higher penalty under Section 77 as the respondent took out registration only on 28.1.2009 as against the date of introduction of levy i.e. 18.4.2006, thereby they are liable to penalty of Rs. 200 per day. Respondent being a star exporter, and, the plea of bonafide, cannot be accepted and therefore invocation of Section 80 is not applicabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Surat-I-2009 (13) STR 579 (Tri.-Ahmd.)  (4) CCE Ahmedabad-II Vs Reclamation Welding Ltd.-2014 (308) ELT 542 (Tri.-Ahmd.)  (5) Jay Yuhshin Ltd. Vs CCE New Delhi-2000 (119) ELT 718 (Tribunal-LB) 4.1 She also submits that during the relevant period, the Section 77 mandated imposition of a maximum penalty of Rs. 1000/- only. If at all, penalty imposable under Section 77, it cannot exceed Rs. 1000/-. Therefore, imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,03,200/- is not at all justifiable. She prayed for upholding of OIA and for rejection of Revenue's appeal. 4.2 She relied on the following case laws on the issue of imposition of penalties under Section 77 & 78 :-  (i) Ishvarya Publicities Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST Chennai-I-2016-TIOL-1409-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there were doubts till decision of the Bombay High Court which was eventually decided by the Supreme Court, on 14/12/2009, in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs UOI (supra) cannot be faulted. It cannot be said that the issue was absolutely clear and the dispute was free from doubts. Right from 2002 onwards, there were lot of amendments trying to bring in taxability of services under reverse charge. It is only with introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 there was clarity and the judicial decisions as stated supra brought in clarity only from 2009 onwards. It cannot therefore be stated that there was a malafide intention on the Respondents part. The contention of the respondent that there was no malafide as ....