2019 (1) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under service tax. For the financial year 2013-14 and 2014-15, it filed ST3 return belatedly for the period from April to September 2013 on 04.04.2014 and for the period from October 2013 to March 2014 on 05.04.2014. Vide show-cause notice dated 28.09.2014 issued under section 73(1) it was asked to reply for alleged short payment of service tax to the tune of Rs. 41,04,525/- and asked as to why the same amount along with interest and penalty under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act shall not be recovered from it? Matter was adjudicated upon that ended in confirmation of duty liability, interest and penalty by the adjudicating authority and after the same was unsuccessfully challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), jurisdiction of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner (Appeals) and argued that when appellant had admitted such non-payment of duty and discharged the tax liability, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing penalty on the appellant as it was apparent from the ST-3 returns that appellant had filed the same but not paid the service tax and it has also admitted tax liability in response to the show-cause notice without assigning any reason as to why it had not discharged the service tax liability for which interference by the Tribunal is uncalled for. 5. Heard from the both sides at length, perused the case record and the relied upon judicial decisions. Going by the show-cause notice, and its reply it can very well be said that assesse ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ground of rejection, as stated by him, is that it was not understood from those invoices as to how the appellant had acted as "pure agent" and on whose behalf! I also fail to understand the logic of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the sense that, to his best assessment, what could be considered as "pure agent" in terms of Rule 5 of Service Tax Determination of Rules, 2006 which confines the definition to the expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider as a pure agent of the recipient of service. In the instant case when the nature of service provide by the appellant being marketing and research agency services, why those items like travel cost, local conveyance, interview etc. will not be considered as expenditure for a company engag....