M\/s. Ramkay Agencies Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (Now Commissioner of GST & C.E. Chennai South Commissionerate)
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1068 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 27-6-2018
Application No. ST\/MISC[CT]\/41106\/2017, Appeal No. ST\/00219\/2011 – Final Order No. 41881\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri T.R. Ramesh, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench,
\nThe issue in dispute concerns income received by appellants from various banks and financial institutions as commission, allegedly for providing service in relation to promoting and marketing va<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, 2012 (25) S.T.R. 489 (Tri. – Del.) and Addis Marketing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, 2017 (50) S.T.R. 56 (Tri. – Mumbai) in support of his contention. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n om the discussions above the matter was being interpreted by judicial forums in different ways as may be seen from the decisions quoted by the Appellants. The Higher Courts have been taking the view that in such situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. Even in the case of Bridgestone Financial Services the Tribunal has given the benefit for such reason. So we are of the view that the demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation. In such a situation penalties are not imposable either.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Ramkay Agencies Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (Now Commissioner of GST & C.E. Chennai South Commissionerate)Service Tax2018 (9) TMI 1068 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 27-6-2018Application No. ST\/MISC[CT]\/41106\/2017, Appeal No. ST\/00219\/2011 – Final Order No. 41881\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri … Continue reading “M\/s. Ramkay Agencies Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (Now Commissioner of GST & C.E. Chennai South Commissionerate)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13812","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13812"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13812\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. On the other hand, Ld. AR supports the impugned order. He points out that the appellants have paid up the tax liability along with interest only after being pointed out by audit.
\n4. Heard both sides. We have gone through the facts.
\n5. Without doubt, the issue of taxability on the impugned services was mired in litigation and was set to rest only by the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Pagariya Auto Center Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad, 2014 (33) S.T.R. 506 (Tri. – LB.). Especially when there was confus<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Following the ratio, we hold that the demand in this case is restricted to the normal period of limitation from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice, with interest <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n