New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 168 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (11) TMI 168 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 656 (Mad.) - Imposition of penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Maintainability of appeal - Monetary limit - Held that:- Revisional order came to be passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy, vide order dated 13.12.2007, imposing penalty of ₹ 200/- per day under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 and also a penalty of ₹ 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,49,170/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. T Chandrasekaran For the Respondent : Mr. J Shankar Raman JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar, J. ) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, the Revenue/appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This appeal was admitted by this Court, on 16.07.2010, on the following substantial questions of law :- "1. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is right in setting aside the penal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Kannappa Corporation, Trichy, were not required to pay service tax when it has been admitted by the assessee that they had rendered the cargo handling services and were liable for paying service tax on the said service, especially when they had not agitated the order of the Original Authority confirming the demand of service tax on the cargo handling service rendered by them ? 3. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is right in settting aside the penalties in a case where the intention to evade paymen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oncern engaged in the business of providing services in handling, storage and transportation of fertilizers of M/s. Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, who are having their factory at Paradeep, Orissa and their head office at New Delhi. On the basis of information received that the assessee was not discharging appropriate Service Tax on the remuneration received towards the services provided by the assessee to M/s. Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. for the purpose of handling despatches .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the fertilizer manufactured and cleared by them during the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. After due process of law, the Order in Original No:04/2007-Service Tax dated 29.03.2007 came to be passed demanding a sum of ₹ 1,49,170/- (service tax of ₹ 1,48,513/- + Ed. Cess of ₹ 657/-) under Section 73 (2) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994. The Original Authority also appropriated the service tax amount of ₹ 1,47,816/- already paid by the assessee and demanded the balance sum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

76 of Finance Act, 1994 and also a penalty of ₹ 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,49,170/- on the assessee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Against the said order, the respondent/assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on considering the facts of the case, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, against which the appellant/Department has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Tribunal shall not be filed where the duty involved or the total revenue including fine and penalty is ₹ 1 Lakh and below. Similarly, in the case of High Courts, appeals should not be filed in cases where the duty involved or total revenue including fine or penalty is ₹ 2 Lakhs and below. While deciding the thresholds mentioned above the duty involved shall be the decisive element. For example, in a case involving duty of ₹ 1 Lakh with mandatory penalty of ₹ 1 Lakh be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

truction, for preferring an appeal, monetary limit is fixed and only if the monetary limit exceeds ₹ 2 Lakhs, appeal can be filed. Since the monetary limit in the present case, even as per the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is well within the limit of ₹ 2 Lakhs, the present appeal, filed by the Department, is not maintainable. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that the appeal was admitted on 25.3.2010 and the National Litigation Policy of the Gov .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

partment, the National Litigation Policy was issued on 20.10.2010 while the appeal was admitted on 25.3.2010. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in the Department filing the appeal. However, it is to be pointed out that the main reason for bringing into effect the National Litigation Policy is to reduce Government litigation so that the Government ceases to be a compulsive litigant. The purpose underlying this Policy is to ensure that valuable time of the Courts is spent in resolving pending cas .....

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