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 →

SA Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I And Vice-Versa

2015 (9) TMI 473 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Penalty u/s 78 - manpower recruitment and supply agency service - Held that:- Prior to 08/04/2011, Section 78 envisaged imposition of penalty equal to service tax short paid or not paid if such short/non-payment was on account of willful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of any other provisions of the Act with an intent to evade service tax. In the present case, the appellant had collected the service tax amount from his customers but failed to remit the same to the exchequer. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion which came into force with effect from 08/04/2011 could not have been extended to the appellant. Penal provisions are substantive in character and therefore, the provisions that shall apply are those existing at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore, there was no scope for the lower appellate authorities to reduce the penalty from the statutory stipulated penalty equal to amount of service tax short paid. - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. ST/87987 & 88635/13 - Dated:- 31-3- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that is, ₹ 23,31,524/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is against this order, the appellants are before me. 2. The appellant is a provider of taxable services of manpower recruitment and supply agency service". The appellant collected consideration for the services rendered along with service tax but failed to remit the same during the period April 2008 to June 2009. He also failed to file service tax returns since April 2007 onwards. Therefore, a show-cause notice 18/03 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appropriated in the order-in-original. The penalty confirmed on the appellant was ₹ 5,000/- under Section 77 of the Act and ₹ 23,31,524/- under Section 78 of the Act. 3. The said order was challenged by the Revenue before the lower appellate authority on the ground that this reduced the penalty under Section 78 would be effective only from 08/04/2011 and not prior to that date and therefore, the appellant was liable to penalty equal to the service tax short paid/not paid. The Commiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he penalty could have been waived. Alternatively, he pleads that as per the order-in-original if the penalty is paid within thirty days of the receipt of the order, the liability would be only ₹ 5,78,881/- which they had discharged within thirty days of the date of communication of the order and therefore, there is no further liability to penalty. It is also his another alternate plea that the penalty that could be imposed on the appellant would be only 25% of the service tax amount short .....

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