Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 1190 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2015 (8) TMI 1190 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - Waiver of pre deposit - Penalty u/s 77 & 78 - Commercial or Industrial Construction Services - Held that:- Appellant had neither filed reply to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing before the adjudicating authority in spite of sufficient opportunities had been accorded to them. The claim of the appellant before us is that the confirmation of demand for receiving the taxable value against services rendered to M/s. SEPCO is incorrect as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n No.SP-71587/13 & Appeal No.ST-71487/13 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75385/2015 - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) and Dr.I.P. Lal, Member(Technical), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Hemant Jajodia, CA For the Respondent : Shri S.P. Pal, Appraiser(AR) ORDER Per Dr. D.M.Misra. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of ₹ 1.79 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. SEPCO, Jharsuguda against gross taxable value of ₹ 20,99,39,507/- received during the said period. The ld. Chartered Accountant submits that they have discharged Service Tax on the services rendered and information was duly disclosed to the Office of Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Hirakund in their ST-3 returns filed during the period October, 2006 to March, 2007. After change in the PAN based registration number, the detail of service tax including cess discharged was als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

plain their position, the applicant could substantiate their claim of payment of service tax against the aforesaid receipts. At this stage he makes an offer to deposit ₹ 13.50 Lakhs and prays that the matter may be remanded to the ld. Commissioner for decision on merit afresh. 3. Per contra the ld.AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner. He submits that the Applicant neither filed reply to the show cause notice nor appeared before the adjudicating authority to re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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