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. Victor Gaskets India Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I

2015 (11) TMI 768 - CESTAT MUMBAI

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 Commissioner of C. Ex. Nagpur Vs. Ultratec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

firmed 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 Chitnis, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. As .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

covered 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 the same was dropped. In the order interes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce 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 made by both sides and perused the record. .....

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