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

2016 (1) TMI 924 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (1) TMI 924 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 249 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - Self adjustment of excess service tax paid towards payment of service tax during the subsequent period - appellants had not intimated the said adjustment to the department - Rules 6(4A) and 6(4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Held that:- there is no dispute about the fact that appellants have paid excess service tax amount of ₹ 2,49,858/- in May 2010. The dispute revolves around the procedure they have followed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent of excess service tax paid which has been adjusted suo-moto against the subsequent service tax liability. - Demand of duty and penalty set aside - levy of penalty of ₹ 5,000/- u/s 77 upheld - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. : ST/13462/2014 - Order No. A/10051/2016 - Dated:- 22-1-2016 - MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri R. Vishwanathan, Senior Advisor. For the Respondent : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative. ORDER Per : Mr. P.M. Saleem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Tax Rules, 1994 and confirmed the demand of service tax, alongwith interest. Penalties of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 77, and equivalent penalty of ₹ 2,49,858/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also imposed on the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and equivalent penalty under Section 78, and reduced the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 77 to ₹ 5,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants are before us. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le 6(4A) and 6(4B), there was no such requirement under Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. He further submits that the limit of adjusting amount up to Rs. one lakh in the succeeding month was also applicable to adjustments under Rule 6 (4A) only and there were no such restrictions under Rule 6(3). He therefore submits that the issue is only of minor procedural defect, if any, and does not warrant imposition of equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. On the other h .....

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