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

2015 (11) TMI 522 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 522 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 77 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Imposition of penalty - Malafide intention - Held that:- Appellant have been making submission before the adjudicating authority and before the Commissioner(Appeals) that they did not have any intension to evade service tax as they have been making cash payment to their consultant, who was assigned the job for computing the service tax and depositing in the bank and also filing the return periodically. However, consultant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enalty by proper application of mind. I, therefore upheld the impugned order and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. - Decided against Revenue. - APPEAL NO. ST/89985/14 & ST/CO/91006/15 - Final Order Nos. A/2276-2277/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 12-6-2015 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) For the Respondent : Shri. Sadashiv Hawaldar, Advocate ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair This Revenue s appeal is against Order-in- Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-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

d service tax from M/s. Cadbury India Ltd and have not deposited the service tax at the relevant time therefore they have defaulted the government, therefore the penalty under Section 78 and Ld. Commission should not have been dropped and the penalty under Section 77 should not have been reduced from 15,000/- to ₹ 500/-. 3. On the other hand, Shri. Sadashiv Hawaldar, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that respondent had no malafide intention to evade service tax. From the entire proce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant did not have any malafide intension or intention to evade service tax. Non payment of service tax has occurred only due to the fraud committed by the consultant. Therefore penalty should not have been imposed under Section 78 as reasonable cause has been shown. By invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, penalty under Section 78 was correctly dropped by the Commissioner(Appeals) as regard the reduction of penalty under Section 77, he submits that entire records was with the consultant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al is only for imposition of penalty under Section 78 and restoration of the penalty of ₹ 15,000/- imposed by the original authority which was reduced by the Commissioner(Appeals) to ₹ 500/-. From the entire proceedings, I observed that appellant have been making submission before the adjudicating authority and before the Commissioner(Appeals) that they did not have any intension to evade service tax as they have been making cash payment to their consultant, who was assigned the job .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ant appointed by the appellants. The appellants have claimed that they had appointed the consultant for making tax calculations, payment of service tax and submission of return etc and they were paying cash to the consultant for the payment of service tax. I find that no contrary evidence has been brought in the investigations in this regard to prove that the amount was not being paid by the appellants to the consultant for the payment of service tax to the department or the appellants were coll .....

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