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

2015 (9) TMI 1385 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (9) TMI 1385 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 492 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Renting of Immovable Property Service - Penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Held that:- If the tax is due as on 6 th of March, 2012 and if the same has been paid alongwith interest within period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2012 received the assent of the President, no penalties shall be imposable for failure to pay the service tax. - Demand is for the period 2007-2011 and the same was payable on 6 th day .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Finance Act. - The appellant has not pressed made this discrepancy either before the adjudicating authority or before the Commissioner (Appeals) and no documentary evidence was submitted before the said lower authorities. Therefore same cannot be verified at this stage therefore demand is upheld - Penalties are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/85371/13 - Final Order No. A/2087/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 17-6-2015 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : None For t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 51,99,993/- during the period 1/6/2007 to 30/6/2011 on which service tax was worked out to ₹ 4,87,835/-. The activity of renting was covered by the definition of Renting of Immovable Property Service as defined under clause (zzzz) of Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant failed to obtain service tax registration and to pay applicable service tax. The show cause to this effect was issued proposing demand and the recovery of the service tax amounting to ₹ 4,87,835/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant filed this appeal. 3. When the matter is called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellant, nor any adjournment request was made, therefore I proceed to decide the matter on merit. 4. Shri Das, Dy Commissioner (A.R) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. A.R. and gone through the grounds of appeal. 6. I find that the appellant in their appeal has prayed for waiver of penalties .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the Finance Act, 2012 the immunity has been granted for penalties under Section 80(2) of Finance Act, which reproduced below:- The new Section 80(2) reads as: Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76 or section 77 or section 78, no penalty shall be imposable for failure to pay service tax payable, as on the 6 th day of March, 2012, on the taxable service referred to in sub-clause (zzzz) of clause (105) of section 65, subject to the condition that the amount of servi .....

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