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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, Star Vision Versus Star Vision, Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore

2015 (10) TMI 515 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Waiver of penalty imposed under Section 76, 77 & 78 of Finance Act - Appellant contested to set aside penalties imposed under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1944 – Appellant serves as authorized distributor under the head Business Auxiliary Service – Appellant states entire service tax deposited even though service tax was not reimbursed in full and non-payment of tax under confusion of taxability is justified - Revenue contends for restoring Section 76 penalty and states Appellants are l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

40716-40717/2015 - Dated:- 18-3-2015 - R Periasami, Member (T) For the Appellant : Mr L Paneerselvam, AC (AR) For the Respondent : Mr M Karthikeyan, Adv ORDER Per R Periasami Both assessee's appeal and Revenue's appeals are taken up together as the issue arises out of common OIA. Appellant filed appeal contesting to set aside penalties imposed under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1944 whereas the Revenue filed appeal for restoring Section 76 penalty. 2. The brief facts of the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Section 78.On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and Section 77 & 78 penalties. However, he reduced the penalty imposed under Section 76 to ₹ 75,000/-. Appellant filed appeal seeking to set aside Section 77 & 78 penalties by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act. On the other hand, Revenue filed appeal against the reduction of penalty in the impugned order under Section 76. 3. The Ld. Advocate submits that the period of levy of service tax is for the period 1.7. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ributor of the Star TV and ESPN channels and upon pointing out by the department, they immediately took up with channel operators for reimbursement of service tax amount whereas ESPN has refused for reimbursement and Star TV agreed to reimburse the amount. Immediately on 10.6.2004, they deposited entire service tax even though ESPN refused to reimburse the service tax. Therefore, they are eligible for waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act. Non-payment of tax during a short period .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

other hand, Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings. He submits that the service tax levy was based on cum tax value which implies that appellants already collected the service tax. Since the provisions of levy was justified, appellants are liable for penalty under Section 77 & 78. The Commissioner (Appeals) has no discretion to reduce penalty imposed under Section 76. 5. After hearing both sides, the case relates to waiver of penalty imposed under Section 76 & 78 as well as Section 77 as the .....

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