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 →

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Versus C.C.E, RAIPUR

2016 (2) TMI 110 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Levy of Interest and penalty - validity of the addendum issued after the date of order-in-original - telephone services - It was contended that When the amount of tax demanded is not payable there is no question of charging interest on delayed payment and no question of imposition of penalty. - Held that:- the appellant is right in asserting that after the issuance of the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority became functus officio and therefore he could not have issued the addendum whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8.2001 and addendum No. V(ST)15-02/Dem/Commr/2000/Adj/Raipur, dated 27.09.2001. In terms of the Order-in-Original dated 09.08.2001 the following order was passed:- "The bills raised in July, 1994 were for the services provided upto 15.6.94 and the service tax was levied on such services w.e.f. 01.7.94. Hence no service tax is payable on the billed amount in July 1994. Further Ministry vide letter F.No. 341/1/2000-TRU dtd. 20.12.2000 clearly clarified that service tax is not leviable on 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

nt) for every month or part of a month other than the surcharge on delayed payment telephone bills of July 1994 and recover the amount. I, therefore, withdrawn the Show Cause Notice and drop the proceedings." After the order in original dated 09.08.2001 was issued the commissioner issued the following addendum 'In Order-In-Original No. 245/ST/Commr/2001 issued vide F.No. V(ST)15-02/DEM/COMMR/2000/ADJ/21046-50 dtd: 09th August 2001 (1)(a) in para 3 of "ORDER" portion appearing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994),:-" 2(a) After the sentence in the same para (3) of the "Order" portion appearing in page 8 & 9 after the sentence:- "- other than the surcharge on delayed payment telephone bills of July 1994 and recover the amount." 2(b) The following sentence is added: "I also do not find any reason for imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) as there was no suppression of taxable value found. .....

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