2025 (8) TMI 1472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JINDAL ] The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of Rs.25,66,000/-, along with interest, besides imposing an equivalent amount as penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rs.5,000/- as penalty under Section 77 of the Act. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of scrutiny of records of the appellant during the month of January, 2010, it was noticed that the appellant had paid consultancy charges in foreign currency to one Shri Sanjay Paul and others, during the period from 2005-06 - 2009-10 (up to September, 2009) for promotion of their business outside India. It transpires from the Consultancy Agreement entered into between the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Paul that the consu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uantified accordingly. 4.1. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 5. The Ld. Consultants appearing on behalf of the appellant submit that the appellant have already paid Service Tax, along with interest, and 25% of Service Tax as penalty, for the commission paid by the appellant to Mr. Sanjay Paul. 5.1. It is also submitted that the appellant has paid commission to their counterpart in USA, namely, M/s. Intel Corp, USA, in regard to information technology and software; that M/s. Intel Corp, USA provided certain services in relation to maintenance of the software sold by the appellant to their clients, on behalf of the appellant, in USA itself, but there is no quantification done with regard to the demand of Service Ta....