2008 (10) TMI 160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er (T) Shri S.P. Mittal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sumit Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)].- Insurance Auxiliary services became taxable w.e.f. 16-8-2002. At that time, there was dispute as to whether the Insurance companies are liable to pay service tax on the renewal commission paid by Insurance Companies to their agents in respect of Insuranc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Deputy Commissioner vide order in original No. 23/ST/Demand/2005 dated 22-11-2005 imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,11,880/- (at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day during the period of failure). The Deputy Commissioner's order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants pleaded that reason for non-payment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issued prior to 16-8-2002. He therefore, pleaded that penalty under Section 76 has been rightly imposed. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that the appellants on their own had made a representation to the Board in September, 2003 seeking Board's clarification on several issues and one of the issue was as to whether the renewal commission paid to the agents after 16....