TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating Authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in the course of audit, the department noticed that the appellants have not paid certain service tax on 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service' (MMRS) and 'Business Auxiliary Service' (BAS). It was noticed that the appellants were receiving certain amounts towards activation charges, commission, discounts and incentives from telecom operators, which would be taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Activation Charges and Mobile and accessories income were found to be covered under MMRS. In respect of demand under the category of BAS, the income reflected was considered as commission received and hence leviable to service tax. It was al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and disallowed year wise are indicated as under: Year Demand as per notice Liability as above Net Tax payable Remarks 2007-08 3,52,033 2,53,153 2,53,153 After SSI benefit 2008-09 46,65,740 46,65,740 46,65,740 As per notice 2009-10 97,957 95,957 95,957 As per notice Total 51,15,730 50,16,850 50,16,850 5. Further, the adjudicating authority did not consider the request for cum-tax benefit as the appellants failed to adduce any evidence that the amount collected for providing services in question was inclusive of service tax and no service tax was collected separately. He, however, allowed benefit of SSI as also income not leviable to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,564/-, which has also been appropriated. They are not contesting this. They are only contesting; (a) Disputed duty demand of Rs.30,18,384/-, (b) Invocation of extended period and (c) Imposition of penalty under section 78. He has also requested that this is a fit case for waiver of penalty under section 80 of the Act. 7. Learned AR, on the other hand, has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and has also submitted that most of the relief they sought has already been considered by the adjudicating authority in the course of adjudication. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. The issue involved in this appeal is the leviability of service tax on certain discounts received by the appellants from the mobile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said amount towards tax liability confirmed. We also find that their request for adjusting of certain amounts paid under the PAN of their Director has already been examined and allowed by the adjudicating authority. Insofar as demand for the period 2011-12, they have already paid the amount and we find that the adjudicating authority has also confirmed the said amount and also appropriated the same. The adjudicating authority has also appropriated certain interest amount towards interest liability in terms of SCN No. 102 & 103/2013. 10. Further, we find that the adjudicating authority has already considered and allowed most of the relief sought by the appellants except for short paid amount of Rs.30,00,145/-, which has been disputed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was not been allowed as documents were not accepted as valid evidence. Thus, as far as imposition of penalty under section 78 is concerned, we find that in the given factual matrix, as also considering the grounds adduced by the appellant for non-imposition of penalty, there was no deliberate evasion or intent to evade service tax on such income. 12. Insofar as their plea for non-invocation of extended period is concerned, we find that almost entire demand was relatable to two issues viz., non-payment of service tax on activation charges as well as nonpayment of service tax on certain income received by them from the manufacturer. On adjudication, the issue relating to discounts is already settled in their favour holding that those inc....