2026 (4) TMI 1433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner (Appeals) upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 27.9.2017 and rejecting the appellant's appeal. The facts which led to the issue of the impugned order are as follows. 2. The appellant was registered with the service tax department for providing Banking Services and Legal Consultancy Services during the relevant period (July 2012 to September 2015). 3. During audit, it was found that the appellant had also provided service as a recovery agency to M/s. Barclays Investment & Loan India Ltd. [Barclays ] and had neither declared these services nor paid any service tax on it. It was also found that the appellant had incurred some expenses for legal services on which it had not paid service tax under reverse charge mec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....05.2015 to September-2015. However, in terms of clause (ii) of the 2nd proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance Act, 2015, the benefit of reduced penalty @ 25% of the amount of service lax determined at Sr. No. (1) above, would be available to them if the service tax amount so determined is paid by them along with applicable interest and such reduced penalty amount within 30 days of receipt of this order." 5. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, by the impugned order, upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner. Hence, this appeal. Submissions of the appellant 6. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: i) The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. Submissions of the Revenue 7. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue vehemently supported the impugned order and asserted that it calls for no interference. He prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. Findings 8. It is undisputed that the appellant acted as the recovery agent for Barclays and received consideration for the service. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had not declared this service and the consideration that it had received for it. 9. The submission of the learned counsel is that the nature of arrangement between the appellant and Barclays was in the nature of a joint venture in which it received its share of Revenue. This submissi....