Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Bootleggers Island represented by its Proprietor Mr. Rajesh Bajaj Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Service Tax

2015 (6) TMI 511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Penalty u/s 76 & 77 - taxes has been paid even before the issuance of show cause notice - Held that:- The benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 should be extended. In the absence of such a substantial plea and there being no bonafide justification for exemption, penalty was imposed. We find no reason why the Authorities should depart from imposing such penalty as mandated by the provisions of the Act. - issue is covered by the decision[2015 (1) TMI 812 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] in the case o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Justice K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S. Muthuvenkataraman For the Respondent : Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar,J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the assessee as against the order dated 13.08.2009 made in Final Order No.970 of 2009 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether no penalty under Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issuance of show cause notice?" 2. The above substantial questions of law are re-framed as follows: a) Whether no penalty under Sections 76 and 77 can be imposed if the failure is supported by reasonable cause in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994? b) Whether the order of the Tribunal in imposing penalty under Sections 77 and 78 without taking into account relevant aspects and without rendering a finding on reasonable cause is not bad? c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in conf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cember, 2001. Since the assessee had not paid service tax from January, 2002 to March 2002, October, 2002 to December, 2002 and January, 2003 to March, 2003 and for the belated payment of service tax, the assessee had not paid any interest, show cause notice was issued proposing to demand service tax with interest and penalty. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed reply stating that the belated payment of service tax was not due to malafide intention and their customers were not wil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issue of the SCN, as stated in the reply dated 24.11.20023 to be adjusted against the demand. Accordingly the revised working sheet is prepared and enclosed as Annexure to this order. I confirm that the assessee shall pay the Service tax due to ₹ 9,915/- (Rupees nine thousand nine hundred and fifteen only) for the notice period, after adjusting the amounts already paid. 16.2. Levy of interest on belated payment is a mandatory provision under section 75 of the Act and hence, I impose the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed and seventy five only) under section 76 of the Act. 16.4. Apart from being irregular in payment of Service Tax, they were irregular in filing of returns also. Therefore, I order payment of ₹ 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under section 77 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal holding that the appellant/assessee had not paid service tax due, but had collected service .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pacity was not disputed by the Authorities below, it was open to the authority to examine the question whether the benefit of Noficiation No.7 of 2001, which granted exemption to taxable service provided to a client by an individual professional videographer in relation to video tape production from the whole of the service tax leviable, was available to the assessee. 7. Subsequent to the remand order, the Adjudicating Authority adjudicated the matter once again and confirmed the demand made in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ional videographer and he was a proprietor of a firm. 9. As against the said order, the assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, thereby confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that financial hardship was the only ground raised for belated payment of service tax, which was not a ground for holding that assessees were not liable to penalty. 10. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal after two rounds of litigation, the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version