FINANCIERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the facts on record, the appellants is engaged in arranging finance/loans for its customers from various banks and financial institutions, for which purposes he gets the commission from the banks and institutions. His factory premises was visited by the officers on 10 -3 -2005 and it was observed that the appellant was covered under the category of 'business auxiliary service' and was required to pay Service tax. The appellant accepted their lapse and paid the tax for the period from 1 -7 -2003 to 31 -3 -05 to the tune of Rs. 1,15,173/ -. The said tax along with interest of Rs. 42,245/ - was deposited by them on 25 -3 -2005.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , proceedings were initiated against them for appropriation of the above deposited tax and interest and for imposition of penalty, by way of issuance of a show cause notice. The said notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the duty and interest but did not impose any penalty as per the provisions of Section 80 of the Act. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was reviewed by Commissioner by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 22 -6 -06 proposing imposition of penalties under Section 75A, 76 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. Vide his impugned order Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 500/ - under Section 75A, of Rs. 100/ -per day under Section 76 and of Rs. 1,15,173/ - under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said order is impugned before Tribunal.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, represented by Shri Atul Gupta ld. CA and Ms. Archana Pandey, ld. CDR, it is seen that the appellants are aggrieved only for imposition of personal penalty by the Commissioner. Their grievance is that the Assistant Commissioner has come to a categorically finding that there was bona fide belief on the part of the appellant, thus attracting the provisions of Section 80 of the Act. It has further been contended that on account of certain orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur deciding that such services are not covered by the business auxiliary services, their belief that they are not liable to pay tax further strengthened.