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 →

Amit Pandey Physics Classes Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Kanpur

2015 (11) TMI 1417 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Levy of Penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Assessee did not declare the facts in their ST-3 returns nor paid the service tax - whether in applying the provisions of Section 78 proviso, the amount of service tax to be considered for calculation of 25% of penalty should exclude the service tax paid before issue of show cause notice - Held that:- The appellant was aware of the obligations under the Service Tax law because initially he had taken registration from the department but had surrendered the same i .....

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 Order No. A/70016/2015 - Dated:- 18-9-2015 - P. S. Pruthi, Member (T) And S. S. Garg, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri Shubham Agrawal, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Jt. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per P S Pruthi This appeal arises from the impugned of Order-in-Appeal No: 460/ST/APPL/KNP/2010 dated 10/09/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur. 2. The facts are that the appellant was registered under the category of "Commercial Coac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imposed under Section 78. Penalties were also imposed under Sections 76 and 77. 3. The contention of the appellant is that they had deposited ₹ 3,27,787/- before the issue of the show cause notice and the same was appropriated under the order-in-original. They deposited ₹ 98,880/-after the issue of order-in-original. However, this amount as well as 25% of this amount as penalty was deposited within 30 days of the communication of the order in terms of proviso to Section 78(1) of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

payable will be only 25% of ₹ 98,880/-. The appellant relied on the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad decision in the case of H.M. Singh & Company vs. Commissioner of Customs, Excise & Service Tax (2014) ISIE-191 All. (HC). 4. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. The issue to be considered is whether in applying the provisions of Section 78 proviso, the amount of service tax to be considered for calculation of 25% of penalty should exclude the service tax paid bef .....

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