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 →

M/s Magic Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Versus CST, New Delhi

2015 (10) TMI 114 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Penalty u/s 78 - Business Auxiliary Service - Receipt of comission - Bonafide belief - Held that:- In this case, most (about 92%) of the impugned demand of service tax alongwith interest was deposited voluntarily by 5.4.2006 and the remaining (about 8% of the impugned demand) was deposited alongwith interest just before receipt of show cause notice. Such voluntary deposit itself gives credence to the contention of the appellant that it was under bonafide belief that the commission received from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

O.52406/2015 - Dated:- 9-7-2015 - Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) and Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri A.K.Batra, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Amresh Jain, AR ORDER PER: R.K.SINGH Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 10.2.2009 which upheld the primary adjudication order dated 5.2.2008 in terms of which service tax demand of ₹ 29,29,517/- was confirmed alongwith interest for the period July, 2004 to March, 2006 and equal amount .....

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 leviable and was also paid. It also got commission from Maruti Finance Ltd. (a group of company of M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd.) on which it did not pay any service tax during July,2004 to March, 2006 believing it to be not payable as it was a commission in their capacity as sub contractor. It paid service tax by 5/4/2006 for the period 10.9.2004 to 9.9.2006 and for the period July 2004 to 9.9.2004 it did not pay service tax as M/s.Maruti Finance Ltd. clarified that it had paid service tax on the ful .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rned DR on the other hand states that the appellant was paying service tax on the commission received from the banks and so it was aware of the tax liability and therefore is guilty of suppression of facts for evasion of impugned service tax amount and therefore the penalty under section 78 is attracted. He fairly conceded that the option to pay 25% penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 has not been expressly extended and so that benefit could be given to it. 4. We have considered the co .....

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