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 →

TMP Manoharan And Co Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry

2015 (12) TMI 14 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Waiver of pre deposit - Adjudicating authority has not taken into account the excludible value of non-taxable service - Penalty u/s 77 & 78 - Held that:- In the adjudication order at para 28.2, where the Commissioner has already taken into account th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eport. We find from the grounds of appeal appellants have paid an amount of ₹ 78,10,816/- for the period 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 as per ST-3 returns and challans. Taking into consideration the submissions, we find that appellants have not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tay granted. - Application No. ST/S/42165/2014, ST/41840/2014 - Dated:- 16-7-2015 - R Periasami, Member (T) And P K Choudhary, Member (J) For the Appellant : Mr V Ravindran, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Per R Periasami Appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion 78. He also imposed penalty under Section 77 and ordered payment under Section 70 of the Finance Act. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the department has already issued a show cause notice No.172/2009 dt.10.10.2009 for the period 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has been made by reconciliation of ST-3 returns and balance sheet. The department has not classified under which category the demand is made. He further submits that during the period in dispute they have already paid ₹ 66,23,841/-. This amoun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y the adjudicating authority. Adjudicating authority has not taken into account the excludible value of non-taxable service. He also submits that they have provided service to the main contractor and the service tax liability to be charged by the mai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

After hearing both sides, we find that in the adjudication order at para 28.2, where the Commissioner has already taken into account the total value and also worked out the revised value. The total taxable value worked out to ₹ 2,30,30,794/- an .....

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