Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 885 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2015 (12) TMI 885 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Demand of service tax - steamer agent service, cargo handling service and business auxiliary service - Waiver of penalty - Held that:- Apparently, the appellants paid the amount when audit objection was raised to settle the issue rather than pursuing the matter and litigating further in this case. The department has proceeded only for the purpose of imposing penalty. The amount was paid even before show-cause notice was issued along with interest. If .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e to be classified according to the category and the nature of service. Only after 2010, the statute treated all services rendered within the port as port service. Therefore since the activity undertaken and the amount collected is for transportation within the port from warehouse to wharf and vice-versa, appellant could have entertained a bona fide belief that what is being rendered is a GTA service. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/25928/2013-SM - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - B. S. V. Murthy, Memb .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

transportation of the goods from warehouse to wharf and vice-versa (exporters and importers) When audit objection was raised that appellant should have paid the tax under the category of steamer agent service, the appellants simply paid the tax along with interest. Subsequently, show-cause notice was issued proposing to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 alleging suppression/fraud with intention to evade service tax. Before the original authority, in the personal hearing, t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the appellant and there could not have been any bona fide belief. Further, he also confirmed the demand on the ground that the classification is correct and also upheld the penalty. 2. The learned CA on behalf of the appellant submitted that even though appellant feels that service has not been classified correctly, they did not want to go into that issue since they have already paid tax. However, he submits that penalty under Section 78 may be waived. 3. I have considered the submissions. B .....

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