N.K. ROY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the confirmation of Service Tax demand in the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' alongwith interest and various penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Preventive Branch officers visited the premises of M/s. Somaiya Organo Chemicals (SOC) and found that M/s. SOC during the period from April 2007 to January, 2008 had made payments amounting to Rs. 33 lakhs to the appellant towards providing services as a contractor for procuring molasses. It was also seen that in the invoices the appellant also charged the service tax and M/s. SOC had made payment of the bills including service tax charged therein. But the invoices issued by the appellant did not indicate the nature of service provided by him to M/s. SOC. A show -cause notice was issued alleging that M/s. SOC was procuring inputs through the appellant and commission was paid by M/s. SOC to the appellant, the said service is appropriately covered under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' and service tax was required to be paid by the appellant. A demand of Rs. 8,61,291/ -was proposed with interest of Rs. 92,979/ -. Penalties were also proposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The matter was adjudicated and the demand of Service Tax along with interest was confirmed. Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also imposed but the penalty under Section 78 was dropped. The same was upheld by the lower appellate authority. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant is before me.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the appellant has paid the Service Tax on pointing out by the department although he had collected the Service Tax in advance. Hence, the adjudicating authority has rightly imposed the penalty under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.