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 →

Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai- I

2016 (3) TMI 486 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Validity of Tribunal's order - Not considered various points - Held that:- as the Tribunal did not considered various points raised by the appellant including whether Commissioner of service tax had the jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for a period prior to 13th May 2005? Whether there was deliberate intent on the part of the Appellant to evade tax? Whether there is any fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is directed against the order dated 26th February 2014 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai ("CESTAT ) in an Appeal filed by the present Appellants. A copy of that order is at Exhibit "A to the present Appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Shah for the Appellants and Mr. Jetly for the Respondent. With their consent, we took up the Appeal for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. The Appellants have set out several questions of law i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f Central Excise Intelligence, Regional Unit, Vadodara initiated an enquiry against the Appellant. It issued a summons dated 24th August 2006. There followed the recording of statements of the Manager (Accounts) of the Appellant and of one Mr. Nageshwaran Rajagopalan Srinivasan under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("the Act ). 6. During the course of investigation, i.e., even before the issuance of a Show Cause Notice, the Appellant paid an amount of ₹ 1,10,80,626/- with i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns 76 and 78. The Appellant responded by its letter dated 11th December 2008. On 2nd January 2009, the Respondent, the Commissioner of Service Tax, passed an Order in Original demanding service tax of ₹ 1,10,80,626/- and interest of ₹ 11,35,434/-, both amounts already paid before the issue of the Show Cause Notice. However, the Respondent also imposed a penalty under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Act. He did not give the Appellant the option of paying 25% of the penalty imposed wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

According to him, that authority, at the relevant time, remained only with the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and could not have been exercised by the present Respondent. 10. In addition, he points out that given the fact that the Appellant had already paid the duty and interest, no question arose of issuing a Show Cause Notice in the first place demanding the very amounts deposits. He also submitted that there was no question of imposing a penalty on the Ap .....

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