TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed this appeal to assail the order-in-appeal dated 24.01.2018 [Impugned order] passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he upheld the order- in-original dated 30.3.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and rejected the appellant's appeal. 3. The appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department and has been providing "business auxiliary service" as defined under section 65 (19) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 [Finance Act]. During the period April 2011 to March 2012 the appellant filed ST-3 returns declaring the taxable value and the service tax payable but had not paid service tax, as required. On further scrutiny of ST-3 returns for the period April 2011 to June 2012 it was noticed that the appellant had not filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to pay service tax, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant was involved in multi level marketing scheme and the commission/consideration provided for marketing or promoting received by the appellant was the subject matter of the tax and in Surendra Singh Rathore versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - I [2014 (34) S.T.R. 147 (T)], the Tribunal had held that such commission is exigible to service tax. He also found that the appellant had not paid the service tax although he was registered with the Service Tax Department and had filed ST-3 returns indicating the amount received and tax payable but failed to pay the service tax even after the SCN was issued. He, therefore, found that there was deliberate disregard for law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST-3 returns and also the service tax payable. However, the appellant had not paid the service tax by due date. Further scrutiny of ST-3 returns also indicated that the appellant had filed the returns after considerable delay and was required to pay late fee as per the rules, which the appellant had not paid. Therefore, the SCN was issued to the appellant and the demand was confirmed. 12. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of this Tribunal in Surendra Singh Rathore to hold that the settled legal position is that the activities of the appellant are chargeable to service tax and, therefore, upheld the demand. It needs to be pointed out that even as per the self assessment by the appellant in its ST-3 ret....