Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Maruti Travel Agency Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I

2015 (11) TMI 336 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Contesting the service tax liability after admitted the same before adjudicating authority - levy of penalty - Benefit of exemption and abatement as per Notification 9/2004-ST and 1/2006-ST - Duty demand u/s 11D - Held that:- miscellaneous application is devoid of merits and needs to be dismissed for more than one reason. Firstly, we find that the appeal has been filed by the appellant in November, 2010 and the miscellaneous application is filed in April 2015, almost after a gap of five years. 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

agitate the issue on merits. - Assessee are not contesting the factual findings as to that they had collected the service tax liability from their clients and did not deposit the same to the government treasury. On this factual matrix, we find that the prayer made by the learned counsel as to invoking the provisions of Section 80 to set aside the penalties are unacceptable and not in consonance with the law. In the absence of any justifiable reason, the appellant could not have kept with th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er: M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No: PI/Commr./Service Tax/03/2010 dated 20/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I. 2. The appellant has also filed a miscellaneous application which is listed today. The said miscellaneous application is for raising additional grounds under Rule 10 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the additional grounds are necessitated as the demands .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urged as a question of law before the Tribunal. 2.1. After considering the submissions made by the learned AR and on perusal of the records, we find that the said miscellaneous application is devoid of merits and needs to be dismissed for more than one reason. Firstly, we find that the appeal has been filed by the appellant in November, 2010 and the miscellaneous application is filed in April 2015, almost after a gap of five years. The assessee is not able to explain such a delay in filing or 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

w of this we reject the application for raising additional grounds of appeal. 2.3. The learned counsel cited Atita Traders vs. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad 1998 (101) ELT 321 and Voltas Limited vs. Collector of Customs, 1997 (91) ELT 261 (SC) for the proposition that point of law can be raised at the Tribunal level. We have perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel. We have no quarrel with the proposition that the point of law can be raised at any time before the higher judicia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version