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 →

M/s Chandra Container Manufacturers, Medak District Versus The Commissioner C.C. E&ST, Hyderabad-I

2016 (6) TMI 579 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Imposition of penalty - Section 77 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Goods Transport Agency and Renting of Immovable Property - appellant failed to take registration and received rents for the godowns - Held that:- the contentions of appellant that it had discharged the service tax liability prior to the issuance of show cause notice. That therefore, as per Sub-section(3) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, the imposition of penalties is unjustified. Further that the issue whether “Renting .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

its. Therefore, by following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Sethi Tools Pvt.Ltd Vs CCE & Cus. & ST Vododara [2015 (9) TMI 633 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], the penalty imposed Under Section 78 is not legal or proper and is set aside. However, the penalty of Rs,5,000/- imposed under Section 77 is sustained as the appellant has failed to establish cogent reason for not taking registration. The demand and interest is confirmed. - Decided partly in favour of appellant with consequential relief - ST/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

registered under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services was not discharging service tax liability. The appellant was receiving rents for the godowns, but had not obtained service tax registration for Renting of Immovable Property. Summons was issued to appellant calling for information regarding the services rendered. During the course of investigation, the appellant paid the service tax on both categories along with interest. 3. A show cause notice was issued alleging that appellant had not disc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ategory of Renting of Immovable Property the appellant contended that they were not aware of levy of service tax on Renting of Immovable property and have paid the amount, immediately on pointing out by department. 4. After due process of law, the original authority gave the benefit of abatement and confirmed demand along with interest on both categories and imposed penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Section 77 and penalty of ₹ 2,34,379/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. The app .....

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