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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Versus M/s. Taib Landscape Studio Pvt. Ltd.

2016 (7) TMI 1079 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Waiver of penalty u/s 80 - the penalties imposed under Section 76,77 & 78 were set aside by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). - the respondent has paid the entire amount of service tax along with interest and not contested the same. - the transaction in respect of the services on which the service tax was not paid was also retrieved from the books of accounts of the respondent which shows that the respondent did not try to hide the transaction. - No penalty. - Appeal No. ST/60/2011, ST/CO/100/2012 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ection 80 and upheld the Order-in-Original so far it relates to confirmation of demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 25,00,640/- and interest thereon amounting to Rs,2,81,592/- 2. The fact of the case is that the respondents are providing Landscape Designing and Consultancy services and Business Support Services. The Business support service was escaped their assessment during the period 2006-07. Investigation was conducted statement was recorded, the Director admitted the service tax liab .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

judicated by the adjudicating authority was upheld. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the respondent is before me. 3. Shri A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.), appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that the respondent had collected the service tax and not deposited in the government account. For this reason no relief such as waiver of penalty can be given to the respondent. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. 5. On ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mposed under Section 76,77 & 78 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Commissioner is reproduced below: 11. I find that in this case, there is a delayed payment of Service Tax. However, the appellants have paid Service Tax amount along with interest before the issue of Show Cause Notice. The allegations of suppression of facts, charged in the Show Cause Notice is mainly based on the fact that the appellants have not filed ST-3 Returns in time. However, in a similar matter in the case of C .....

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 set aside the penalty & therefore the Revenue had filed an appeal before CESTAT, against setting aside the penalty under Sections 76 & 77 of the Act. I find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratios of decision in the case of Top Detective and Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2005 (180) ELT 363 (Tri.-Mumbai) as far as imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 77 of Finance Act is concerned. 11.1. Further, in this case, the adjudicatin .....

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