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 →

M/s. Pato Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST- JSR

2015 (11) TMI 782 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Penalty u/s 76 & 77 - whether penalties imposed upon the appellant under Section 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 are justified when appellant has paid the entire differential service tax along with interest before issue of Show Cause Notice - Held that:- Recipient of the services informed appellant that rate of duty on Works Contract Services as per Notification No.32/2007-ST dt.22.5.2007 was 2%. It is not brought out by the Revenue that appellant was aware of the fact that service tax of 4% 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

ow Cause Notice being issued then also the fact remains that the entire differential service tax was paid along with interest. Even otherwise also from the returns filed Revenue would have given appellant a demand. As no penalty under Section 78 was imposed by the Adjudicating authority appellant s conduct of paying entire differential service tax along with interest, before the issue of Show Cause Notice or on the date of Show Cause Notice, will have to be appreciated. - Decided in favour of 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

tial service tax liability on works contract services, along with interest, was paid by the appellant before the issue of show cause notice, but first appellate authority has rejected the case of the appellant for immunity from penalty under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that appellant came to know of getting a Show Cause Notice which was the reason for payment of amount. 2. Shri S.P.Siddhanta(Consultant) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant was payin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

soon as the appellant came to know about this fact they wrote to the service recipient to pay the differential amount. That proper ST-3 returns were filed showing service tax paid at the rate of 2%. He made the Bench go through the correspondence exchanged between the appellant and the service recipient. It was the case of the learned Consultant that without waiting for the payment from the service recipient appellant suo-motu made the payment before issue of Show Cause Notice which was served o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1994. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these proceedings is whether penalties imposed upon the appellant under Section 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 are justified when appellant has paid the entire differential service tax along with interest before issue of Show Cause Notice. It is observed from case records that no penalty has been imposed upon the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is also observed from the case records that .....

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