2019 (8) TMI 1375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant was engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Service as commission Agent in promotion and marketing of services of holidays option offered and operated by one M/s. Pancard Club Ltd. - (PCL), Mumbai. Intelligence was gathered by DGCEI MZU, Mumbai that appellant was not discharging service tax liability though it had exceeded the small scale exemption limit and also had not obtained service tax registration. Accordingly show cause cum demand notice invoking extended period under section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 covering period 2007-08 to 2011-12 was issued by DGCEI proposing recovering of service tax with interest and imposition of penalty. Two show cause notice cum demand notices were also issued for the subsequent period 2012-13 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble at page-92 of appeal Memo. He however pointed out that DGCEI raided PCL under which more than 200 un-registered Commission Agents were working and several of them including Vidyadhar (photocopy of judgemet of CESTAT has been annexed and Sheetal Dashrath Gawde as well as Shri Jagesh Rukkappa Poojary (photocopy filed at the time of hearing), against whom equivalent penalty under section 78 were imposed, were all set aside by the Tribunal. In Vidyadhar's case also payment of duty with cum tax benefit was accepted by the CESTAT without any further penal consequences. Citing the judgement of CESTAT passed in order no. 92254-92255/2017 wherein issue of show cause after discharge of duty and interest liability proposing penalty was questioned ....