2022 (10) TMI 879

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant Shri. Prakash Kumar Singh, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have shown the income and booked in their profit and loss account as commission, accordingly, the demand of service tax on the commission under the head of Business Auxiliary Service was confirmed for the period 2004-2005, 2006- 2007 and 2007-200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....13/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. The service tax was exempted. The demand of Rs.69,360/-is on the invoices issued on 15.04.2004 and 15.05.2004, therefore, the entire demand is not sustainable, in view of the exemption under Notification No.13/2003-ST dated 26.06.2003 up to the period of 08.07.2004. He further submits that as regard the demand of Rs.73440/- for the period 2006-07, the service is clearl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Software Consultancy Service. As regard the mentioning in the profit and loss account as commission it clearly appears that there is a mistake occurred in mentioning the expenditure in the books of accounts. Therefore, we have no doubt that the service provided by the appellant is of Software Consultancy Charges, accordingly, the demand under Commissioner in the head of Business Auxiliary Servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ame was related to Finance Consultancy Service and the same was discharged by the appellant. They are only contesting the penalty. Considering the meager amount and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that appellant have made a fit case for waiver of the penalty corresponding to Rs.2363/- demand, accordingly, the penalty is also not sustained. 5. As per our above discuss....