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. Jaypee Industrial & Medical Service (JIMS) Versus CCE, Bhopal

2015 (11) TMI 520 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Penalty u/s 76 - whether or not penalty can be imposed under the provisions of section 76 of the Act - Held that:- In Shivas industrial Caterers India P.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai- [2014 (1) TMI 1557 - CESTAT CHENNAI], it was observed that the allegation of the department that appellant being habitual offenders entire amount is to be recovered is not sustainable as there is no distinction between habitual and one time offenders under section 73 (3) of the Act. It was held there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

DER Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging imposition of penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for delayed payment of service tax alongwith interest. 2. The appellant was issued show cause notice dated 8.10.2010 alleging delay in discharge of service tax liability. Though the appellant discharged the service tax liability alongwith interest, penalty under section 76 of the Act was imposed which according to the app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nths, in the relevant period. 4. The counsel for appellant contended that the assessee is a public limited company and though there has been delay in discharging the liability during the period from July 2005 to March, 2007 and April 2008 to August, 2008, the appellant had discharged the liability with interest. 5. The Board s Circular No.137/167/2006-CX-4 dated 3.10.2007 has been adverted to by the learned Counsel to explain that once service tax alongwith interest is discharged prior to issuan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en.), CST v. OTS Advertising P.Ltd.-2013 (32) STR 303 (Tri.-Bang.) and Jay Shipping v. CCE-2010 (20) STR 399 (Tri.-Mum.). 6. It is not in dispute that the appellant has discharged the service tax liability during above period along with interest. The only issue is whether or not penalty can be imposed under the provisions of section 76 of the Act. The records reveal that the service tax due on July, August, September, and October 2005 was paid on 24th December, 2005. The service tax due on 5th M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sue of show cause notice. 8. In Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs. Master Kleen-2012 (25) ELT STR 439 (Kar), the Hon ble High Court has held as under:- 2. The material on record discloses that the assessee on being pointed out by the authorities for not paying the service tax, has paid the service tax with interest even before the issue of show cause notice. Sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, categorically states that if tax and interest is paid and the same is infor .....

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