TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices to M/s Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred as M/s ACCSL) against certain commission received from M/s ACCSL. After receiving a specific intelligence about various advisors of M/s ACCSL, department scrutinized their record and observed that the appellant had received commission amounting to Rs. 1,11,45,403/- during the period April 2014 to June 2017 for providing the advisory services not only to M/s ACCSL but to M/s Sahara and other parties as well. The appellant had arranged investors and persuaded them for making deposits in M/s ACCSL and in lieu of the said activity they had charged the said commission from M/s ACCSL and other parties as well. The department formed an opinion that the said activity of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax compliance as the service recipient M/s ACCSL itself being a financial institution. Under this bonafide belief that the appellant did not get itself registered under service tax nor did deposit the tax. Hence there was no intention to evade the payment of tax. The extended period has wrongly been invoked by the department. The appellant is otherwise eligible for SSI exemption as the amount received as commission was below Rs. 10 lakhs. 6. It is further mentioned that reply to the impugned show cause notice was submitted by the appellant duly explaining its stand and praying for dropping of the proposed demand, however, his contentions were not appreciated by the adjudicating authorities below. The demand is otherwise based on the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly the demand of Rs. 16,10,317/- was proposed vide impugned show cause notice, however, the demand of Rs. 12,96,358/- has been confirmed by the adjudicating authorities below. I further observe that the said order has dealt with the contentions raised by the appellant in its reply to the impugned show cause notice wherein it was explained that the service tax has wrongly been calculated. The right rate of service tax in different financial year has not properly been considered. Cum tax benefit was also not provided to the appellant. The adjudicating authorities have accepted the said contentions while confirming the demand of Rs. 12,85,361/- instead of what it was proposed. 10. From the appellant's reply itself, I observe that appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y named in section 66D were exempted from tax liability. 12. Reverting to facts of this appeal the admitted activity of the appellant in the present case is providing advisory/consultancy to M/s ACCSL and various other clients against receiving a commission from them. Section 66D does not cover this activity. It becomes clear that the service rendered by the appellant is taxable service. The Notification No. 7/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 as brought to our notice introduced levy of service tax on the commission received. Seen from both these angles it stands clear on record that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the amount of commission received during the impugned period (2014-2015 to 2017-2018) ; 13. The appellant has claim....