2018 (9) TMI 1665 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Intellectual Property Service – Extended period of limitation – Appellant refined crude edible palm oil belonging to others, affixed their brand name ‘ROOBINI’ on the packages and collected brand royalty commission of ₹ 100/- per MT from such clients – Held that:- It is not the case that the appellant had informed the department about these transactions in ER-I returns. This being so, the extended period, can very well be invoked and hence the entire demand of service tax of ₹ 1,74,782/- with interest thereon is not being interfered with – However, taking into consideration that the issue was interpretational and there was reasonable cause for the failure to pay tax, the penalties imposed are set aside.
–
Demand of ₹ 41,820/- under C&F Agent Service – Held that:- Following the ratio in Kulcip Medicines (P) Ltd. [2009 (2) TMI 89 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], the demand is unsustainable and requires to be set aside –
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
y Service under section 65(55b) of Finance Act, 1994. Show cause notice dated 4.4.2006 was issued to appellants inter alia proposing demand of service tax of ₹ 1,02,139/- along with interest thereon and for imposition of penalty under various provisions of law. Another show cause notice dated 11.12.2007 was issued for the period 10/9/2004 to 31/03/2005 proposing demand of service tax of ₹ 1,74,782/- along with interest thereon and also for imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. The said show cause notice also proposed demand of ₹ 41,826/- as service tax liability for the years 2003 – 04 and 2004 – 05 with interest under the category of clearing and forwarding agents service. Both the show cause notices were adjudicated and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence appeal Nos.. ST/251/2010 and ST/269/2010. The appellant had paid up the amount of ₹ 1,74,782/- along with interest
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
₹ 41,826/- relating to C&F Agents service, ld. counsel pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Medpro Pharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2008-TIOL-848-CESTAT-DEL-LB. However, the said decision has been overruled by the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kulcip Medicines () Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2009 (14) STR 608 (P&H). The Hon ble High Court has held that the legislative intention to cover a person rendering C&F agent service is that the word and is to be understood in its conjunctive sense. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR Shri S.Govindarajan supports the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In respect of demand of ₹ 1,02,139/- relating to appeal No. ST/251/2010, the ld. counsel is not contesting the demand and hence the impugned order is not interfered with. However, we find merit in the contention put forward by the appellant regarding penalty. As the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =