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. B.S.L. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise., Jaipur-II

2015 (9) TMI 1440 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Service tax demand along with interest and penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- There is no doubt that the commission paid to overseas agents by the appellant was liable to service tax under BAS and the appellant is not contesting the same

As decide in Jubiliant Enpro (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [2014 (12) TMI 598 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] even if at the relevant time the penalties under Section 76 & 78 were not mutually exclusive, once penalty under Sect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d penalty will be taken into account for this purpose. - ST/835/2009-CU[DB] - Final Order No. 53824/2015, - Dated:- 11-9-2015 - G. Raghuram, President & Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) For the appellant: Mr. Rajni Gupta, Advocate For the respondent: Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR Per Mr. R.K. Singh : Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 26.08.2009, which upheld Order-in-Original dated 12.06.2008 which:- (i) In respect of Show Cause Notice dated 06.06.2007, confirmed service tax de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce Act, 1994. The said demands were confirmed on the ground that the appellant engaged various overseas agents to procure export orders and paid them commission, but did not pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) under reverse charge mechanism during the period 01.10.2006 to 30.01.2007. 2. The appellant is not contesting the impugned demand and interest, but is pleading that (i) the impugned Order-in-Appeal was received by it on 06.01.200, (ii) it had deposited the entire impugne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

same. However, regarding the contention of the appellant that it should not have been imposed penalty under Section 76 ibid, we find that in the case of Jubiliant Enpro (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [2015-TIOL-2535-CESTAT-DEL], CESTAT has held as under:- 12. The appellants have argued that once penalty under Section 78 has been imposed, penalty under Section-76 of Finance Act, 1994 should not be imposed. We find that Punjab & Haryana High Court in several cases (viz CCE Vs. First Flight Couriers L .....

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