2017 (12) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of their business, they have permitted certain Insurance Companies and Financial Institutions to canvass their services using the appellant's premises. For availing such sort of facilities with the manufacturer of motor vehicles, these Insurance Companies/Financial Institutions paid certain consideration to M/s. MUL upto 09.09.2004. Thereafter, the appellants started receiving certain considerations directly. M/s. MUL during the period, when they received full consideration, paid some portion of the same to the appellants. The dispute, in the present case is with reference to the liability of the appellants to pay service tax on such consideration either received directly from the financing companies or received from M/s. MUL, under th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n act of willful suppression and they were discharging service tax on various services and non-payment of this portion is only due to their understanding regarding non-liability of service tax. When M/s. MUL advised them to separately pay service tax on their part of consideration, they have started doing so. She submitted that there is no justification elaborated in the impugned proceedings for imposition of double the amount of tax liability under section 78. While not contesting the tax  already paid, the learned counsel submitted that the penalties and demand for extended period may be set aside.  4.  The learned Authorised Representative opposes the appeal. He submitted that the tax liability is not in dispute. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t from M/s. MUL. They paid service tax after being pointed out by the department. We find these observations cannot form a sound reasoning for including the extended period of demand. The case laws relied upon by the Revenue is on facts differ from the present case In Sai Service Station Ltd. (supra), it was recorded that the appellants did not get registered with the department and pay service tax in spite of instructions given by M/s. MUL. Similarly in M/s. Jaybharat Automobiles Ltd., (supra), it was observed that the appellants did not discharge service tax on the consideration amount received from companies. As noted earlier in this case, the earlier arrangement of receiving part of the consideration from M/s. MUL was later changed and ....