Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 768 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 768 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - CENVAT Credit - outdoor catering services - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- The original authority has in principle held that outdoor catering service as input service however credit attributed to the service charges recovered from the employee was disallowed. As regard the denial of the credit attributed on service charges recovered from the employee in case of outdoor catering service is covered by the Honble Bombay High Court judgment in case of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bserved that appellant paid the amount confirmed by the original authority alongwith interest and as per the submission of Ld. Counsel they are not contesting the demand and interest. In view of this position I find that no malafide is proved against appellant therefore penalty should not have been imposed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO. E/545/10 & Application No. E/EXTN/96014/14 - Dated:- 1-6-2015 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri. Sachin Chitn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wherein part of the service charges was recovered by the appellant from the employees of the company. The show cause notice was issued for denial of Cenvat Credit on outdoor catering services amounting to ₹ 77,359/- and proposed penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB. The show cause notice was adjudicated and the adjudicating authority in his order-in-original confirmed part of the amount of ₹ 16381/- and balance amount of ₹ 60978/-was held admissible hence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Cenvat Credit on the subject input service i.e outdoor catering service was admissible but only part of the amount was recovered from the employee. He also submits that demand is within the normal period, appellant has already paid the service tax alongwith interest therefore he only prays to waive the penalty. 4. Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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