TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest and penalty. 2. Factual backdrop of the case is that appellant had provided "Business Auxiliary Services" to M/s Tata Teleservices Maharashtra Ltd. (TTML) by selling its SIM cards allegedly on commission basis. During scrutiny of M/s TTML records, it was found that appellant had charged certain amount of Service Tax from M/s TTML but not deposited the same with the Government whereas M/s TTML availed CENVAT credit on those Service Tax amount so paid to the appellant. It was put to show-cause notice and duty demand under Section 73(1) was made by notice dated 27.03.2012 which was corrected as Section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 through a corrigendum issued on 17.04.2012. Appellant offered no response to such notice for which matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case and not discharged duty liability as well as filed ST-3 return for which Commissioner had rightly passed the order. He further submitted that though no penalty was imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and no finding was given by him on the same, he did not want to place his argument on those aspects, as no cross-objection is filed by the department. 5. Heard from both sides and perused the case records. Admission of appellant, in the appeal memo and addendum to it, indicates that appellant had taken Service Tax registration and signed commission documents issued by M/s TTML in which service tax component has been specifically segregated. It further admitted in page 7(2) of the appeal memo that appellant had not respondent to the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....witness. On the other hand, appellant remand absent during adjudication process and not even responded to the show-cause notice for which statement of witness was accepted as true by the authorities below. Further reference can also be made to the appellant's contention regarding small scale exemption. No such notification had ever allowed a tax to be collected on behalf of the Government and not credited to the treasury. In view of the fact that appellant had collected the Service Tax which is established through his signature made on the commission statement obtained by the M/s TTML which remains unchallenged, it cannot discharge its tax liability just by making bald statement that such signature was obtained on nil tax documents. However....