K.S.Jhaveri - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
(2.) This court while admitting the appeal on 4-10-2017 framed following substantial question of law :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that commission received from the broker would fall in the category of business auxiliary services and brokerage received on which service tax of Rs. 1,17,822/- is liable to be taxed, penalty and interest, such conclusion is proper? Whether, without mentioned specific clause of business auxiliary services as mentioned under section 65(19), the appellant can be held liable for all the services as mentioned in business auxiliary services for the purpose of Service Tax. As such order passed by all the authorities is legally sustainable."
(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a Show Cause Notices C, No. V (STD) 15/694/BAS/Dem/2008/2006, dated 19-8-2008 wherein they were called upon to Show Cause as to why :- (i) The Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,17,822/- (Service Tax 1,15,512/- and Education Cess Rs. [2,310/-]) short paid/not paid by them as stated above, should not be recovered from them under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) Interest should not be recovered from them on the Service Tax amount not paid/short paid under the proviso of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the finance Act, 1994 for contravention of the provisions of Sections 67, 68, 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 4, 6 and 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. ;