TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the Department ORDER Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. The ordersheet indicates that even on earlier occasions when the matter was listed, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant. It also transpires from the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that no one had appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) also, as a result ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entered into between the Bank and the appellant. 4. A show cause notice dated 21.04.2015 was issued to the appellant that even though the appellant was engaged in providing 'recovery agent services' made taxable under section 65(105) (zzzl) of the Finance Act, 1994 [The Finance Act] but the appellant did not pay service tax. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax with int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng authority has replied in detail on this plea of the appellant and I find no infirmity in the same. 7. Regarding their plea of threshold exemption, I find that from the facts of the case recorded in the body of the impugned order itself, it is evident that total receipt in the Financial Year 2009-10 was Rs.4,55,145/- and in the Year 2012-13, it was Rs.4,01,725/- which is within the prescribed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of law and contravened the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and suppressed the facts from the department which could only be obtained from the Bank, as detailed in the impugned order, hence penalty under Section 77 & 78 of the Act has rightly been imposed by the adjudicating authority providing the detailed reason for such imposition. However the quantum of penalty under Section 78 of ....