TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, upholding the adjudged demand confirmed against the appellant. In this case, the appellant is engaged in the activities of providing Multi-level Marketing services for the consumer goods belonging to M/s. Fashion Suitings Ltd. The service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that in the case of appellant's own case, for the earlier period, this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 27.06.2013 has confirmed the penalties on the ground that no reasonable cause was shown to prove no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19.09.2004 to 10.08.2008 is partly barred by limitation of time. With regard to the submissions of the ld. AR that in the case of the appellant itself, this Tribunal has confirmed penalties, we find that the decision referred to and relied upon by the ld. AR was rendered on 27.06.2013; whereas considering the said decision, the Tribunal in the case of Charanjeet Singh Khanuja & Ors. (supra) has he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be confined to the normal period. Since the Adjudicating Authority had not quantified the service tax liability, payable by the appellant within the normal period, we remand the matter back to the Original Authority for computation of the service tax liability within the normal period. 6. In view of the fact that there were confusions with regard to payment of service tax on Multi Level Marketin....