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

2015 (11) TMI 782 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2015 (11) TMI 782 - CESTAT KOLKATA - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 463 (Tri. - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.10.2009 and intimated the department. Even if appellant came to know of a Show 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mp; Service Tax, Ranchi as the first appellate authority. The entire differential 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(Con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dt.1.3.2008 by which rate of composition scheme was enhanced to 4%. That as 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 s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rejected appellants claim of immunity under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 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 .....

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