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 →

Rughani Brothers Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai

2015 (9) TMI 684 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Imposition of penalty - Delay in filing returns - Held that:- Rule 7C read with first proviso makes it abundantly clear that the maximum penalty that can be imposed under the said Rule is the one prescribed under Section 70. During the impugned perio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ount. Since one return has been filed in time, penalty is liable only on five returns and thus the total liability to penalty is only ₹ 10,000/-. Inasmuch as the appellant has paid the said amount, there is no further liability to penalty. - Pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(AR) ORDER Per: P R Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. PD/ST-I/514/14 dated 28/03/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-IV. 2. Vide the impugned order, the lower appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ore me. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant delayed filing of service tax returns for the period April 2008 to March 2011 and the returns for this period was filed on 07/09/2011. The reason for not filing the return wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ey were not required to file the returns. However, the department issued notice dated 25/08/2011 directing them to file returns and also to pay penalty for non-filing of the returns under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said notice was adjud .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issued vide notice dated 13/02/2012 proposing to demand a sum of ₹ 1,01,500/- being the late fee required to be paid by the appellant under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. This penalty was .....

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 reads as follows: "provided that the total amount payable in terms of this rule, for delayed submission of return, shall not exceed the amount specified in section 70 of the Act" 5. Section 70 as it stood at the relevant time, put a cap 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

500/-. The appellant has already paid ₹ 10,000/- under Section 77 and one return has been filed in time. 6. The learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that the maximum .....

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