TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ributor of M/s Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and also for the amount received as incentive like bonus etc., for undertaking the activities of marketing of products. Adjudicating authority after following due process of law confirmed the service tax of Rs. 2,75,394/- along with interest and also imposed penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred before first appellate authority who also did not find any merits in the appellant s case. 4. Learned Counsel submits that appellant has got two streams of income, one is the commission received from the multiple/chain marketing of products of M/s Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. Amway) and another is direct purchase and sale o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Charanjeet Singh Khanuja (supra). On merits, we hold that the appellant has no case. 6.1 On the question of limitation, we find that the show-cause notice is issued on 18.08.2009 demanding service tax for the period May 2006 to October 2008. The argument of the learned Counsel is that they were under bonafide belief as to the tax liability does not arise. We find that in the case of Charanjeet Singh Khanuja (supra) same plea was raised by the appellant therein and in para 16 of the order the Tribunal held that extended period cannot be invoked. The said paragraph is reproduced "16. Another plea raised in these appeals is regarding limitation. It is the contention of the assessees that there was absolutely no suppression or mis-stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, there was no scope for doubt. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) when there is scope for doubt in the mind of an assessee on a particular issue, the longer limitation period, under proviso to Section 11A(1)cannot be invoked and in our view, the ratio of this judgement of the Apex Court is applicable to the facts of these cases. Therefore, the longer limitation period of 5 years under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 would not be invokable and duty can be demanded only for normal limitation period of one year from the relevant date." 6.2 In view of the stated position on similar iss....