2008 (6) TMI 46

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 revenue.          3. I heard both sides. 4. The appellants are selling/marketing the Sim Cards of M/s. Bharati Mobile Ltd. and also collecting telephone service bills namely pre-paid and post-paid. Revenue proceeded against them on the ground that the above services amount to "Business Auxiliary Services" which is taxable. The original Authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1,61,906 under section 32(2) of Finance Act, 1994 for the services rendered during the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2004. Interest under section 75 was demanded. A penalty of Rs. 500 was imposed under section 75A of the Finance Act. Further, penalty of Rs. 100 for every day was imposed under section 7....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... section 73. There is no suppression of information with an intention to evade payment of service tax. Hence, longer period cannot be invoked. (iv) In view of the above, the learned Advocate requested the Bench to set aside the impugned order and grant relief. The learned Advocate in the course of the hearing before the Bench referred to the Amnesty Scheme which was prevalent during that period. In terms of the scheme, if service tax and interest are paid, no penalties will be payable. She urged that as the service tax has already been paid, the penalties imposed are very harsh. Therefore, she requested for setting aside the penalty. She stated that section 80 of the Finance Act provides for waiver of penalty. The learned Advocate relied....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Security Consultants v. CCE [2007] 7 STT 172 (New Delhi - CESTAT). (j) S. Ramanand Aiyar & Co. v. CST [Final Order No. 1101 of 2006-SM(PB), dated 19-6-2006]. (k) CCE v. Jas One Securities [Order No. 469 of 2003 dated 20-2-2003]. (l) Ajay Somani & Co. v. CCE [2007] 9 STT 195 (New Delhi - CESTAT). (m) Continental Brakes. Ltd. v. CC [Stay Order No. 550 of 2007 dated 23-7-2007]. (n) CCE v. Parmarth Steel & alloys (P.) Ltd. 2007 (209) ELT 200 (Trib. - Delhi). 6. On a very careful consideration of the matter, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has just passed the order without examining the points urged by the appellant. In the course of the hearing before the Bench, the learned Advocate stated that the Service Tax has alre....