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 Viraj Roadlines Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

2015 (12) TMI 335 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Penalty imposed under Section 76 and 77 & 78 - rent a cab service - Held that:- The service tax liability has not been contested by the appellant and they have paid service tax alongwith interest before adjudication order was passed. It is fact on re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty can be waived invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. I therefore upheld the impugned order - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. ST/86258/13 - Dated:- 17-6-2015 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri Bhushan Jain, CA Fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmissioner upheld the penalty imposed under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act and rejected appeal of the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in providing services of rent a cab. On the scrutiny of the records by 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

77; 72,185/-, interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78. In the adjudication, the adjudicating authority has confirmed demand and imposed penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Section 77 and equal amount of penalty under Section 78 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpugned order therefore appellant is before me. 3. Shri. Bhushan Jain, Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant is small time service provider, illiterate. He was fully co-operated with the investigating officer. He also 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

umar Iyer, Ld. Superintendent (A.R) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that submission of the Ld. Counsel is not correct for the reason that appellant was registered with service tax authority .....

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