Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2002 2002 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 301 to 301 of 301 Records

• 2002 (6) TMI 1
  

  Service Tax – Mandap Keeper - Penalty and Interest for late filing of return

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e service tax on this particular service was introduced somewhere in the middle of July, 1997 and the returns for September, October and November were delayed by the new assessee. We observe from the chart, extracted herein above, that the delay has been considerably reduced in each subsequent month. We therefore find, that relying upon the decisions of this Tribunal in such cases, the order of the Commissioner, reviewing the decision of the lower authority and increasing the penalties cannot be upheld. We, therefore would set aside order of the Commissioner, under appeal before us. (c) The appellants have not taken any grounds, in appeal, or made any prayer against the Order of the ld. Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise (Service tax) which is restored due to the setting aside of the order of the Commissioner. We would, in this view, not interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 3. In view of our findings, the Order of Commissioner is set aside and appeal allowed.

  ---

1 ....1213141516