Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, M/s. Capital Color Lab

2015 (7) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Maintainability of appeal - photography service - exemption under Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 - Monetary limit - Held that:- It is seen from the records that the adjudicating authority initially imposed ₹ 52,417/- as service tax with applicable interest and penalty equivalent to the demand of ₹ 52,417/-. Therefore, it is very clear from the records that the monetary limit having been fixed at ₹ 2 Lakhs, even as per the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the 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

s Court, vide order dated 10.06.2011, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- 1) Whether the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in concluding that the Revision Order passed by the Commissioner under the provision of Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994 to be set aside when the issue under revision was not pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)? 2) Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on No.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 and suppressed the material details in ST-3 returns, show cause notice was issued proposing to demand appropriate service tax along with interest and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority, after due process of law, confirmed the demand of ₹ 52,417/- for the period 1.7.03 to 9.9.04 holding that there was short payment of service tax with an intention to evade payment of service tax. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, took the appeal itself. The Tribunal relying upon the decisions of the Tribunal set aside the review order passed by the Commissioner holding that when the dispute is pending before the Appellate Commissioner, the Commissioner of Central Excise should not impose higher penal liability. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court. 3. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cided that appeals in the Tribunal shall not be filed where the duty involved or the total revenue including fine and penalty is ₹ 1 Lakh and below. Similarly, in the case of High Courts, appeals should not be filed in cases where the duty involved or total revenue including fine or penalty is ₹ 2 Lakhs and below. While deciding the thresholds mentioned above the duty involved shall be the decisive element. For example, in a case involving duty of ₹ 1 Lakh with mandatory penalt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version