2018 (2) TMI 324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aged in providing Recovery Agent Services to ICICI Bank Ltd. The Recovery Agent Service was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994, in the year 2006. The appellant had not taken any registration nor was making any compliances. Information was gathered by Revenue from ICICI Bank Ltd., as regards service being received and payment is being made to them Recovery Agents and accordingly ICICI Bank provided to Revenue list of recovery agents, alongwith details of payments/commission paid to them by the Bank vide letter dated 7th June 2011. From perusal of the information provided by the Bank, it revealed, among other persons, this appellant had also received payments/commission from the Bank for providing of Recovery Agent Service, during the period....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch the return for the relevant year is pending. He also stated that he has got no knowledge of service tax provisions and neither he was informed by the Bank, in this regard, nor by his income tax consultant, as such he has not deposited the service tax. Further stating that as the provisions came to his knowledge now he will comply with and, he has not concealed any facts and no penalty may be imposed upon him. 4. It further appeared to Revenue that under Notification No.15/2006-ST dated 25th April 2006, the taxable services of Recovery Agent have been notified with effect from 1st May, 2006 as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzl) is as under:- "Taxable service means any service provided or to be provided to a banking company or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- and also reduced the penalty under Section 78, accordingly. He further set aside the penalty under Section 76 and imposed Section 77 of the Finance Act. However penalty under Section 77 was confirmed by the Learned Commissioner (was pleased to quantify the same) towards non registration. 6. Being aggrieved, the learned counsel states that it is admitted fact that the appellant is neither much educated nor had the knowledge of the provisions of the service tax. Further it is admitted fact that ICICI Bank never pointed out to the appellant as regards their liability under the service tax provisions. Further, the appellant was not even making the bills, nor charging the service tax. Further, it was the ICICI Bank, which used to calculate ....