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 →

M/s. Tirupur Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Coimbatore

2016 (8) TMI 43 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Waiver of penalty u/s 80 - reasonable cause - bonafide mistake - it was submitted that appellant had misinterpreted the provisions and hence erred in depositing the service tax in time - Held that:- The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) denied the relief from penalty in terms of Section 80, as they were not able to substantiate failures to pay the service tax and of non-filing of ST-3 return. I find that both the authorities below dealt the issue in detail and were not satisfied with the reason adduced .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ial Member Shri Joseph Prabakar, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER M/s. Tirupur Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein are registered under the service tax department for providing services under the category of Cargo Handling and Goods Transport Agency service. It was alleged by the department that they did not pay service tax on the impugned services rendered by them during the period from 01.12.2005 to 30.10.2006. Further they hav .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t, 1994. On adjudication, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 12,42,368/- along with interest and appropriated an amount of ₹ 5,43,594/-, ₹ 10,872/-, ₹ 67,966/-, ₹ 4,56,473/-, ₹ 9,129/- and ₹ 46,860/- already paid by them. Further, he imposed penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, for non-payment of service tax and for non-filing of ST-3 return. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal on the gro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e and stated that they are before the Tribunal only on the penalty aspect. Hence, he prayed that the penalties may be set aside. 3. Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, appearing on behalf of the department submitted that it has been established that they have contravened the provisions of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, in as much as they have failed to pay the service tax for availing the services of GTA for the period Dec. 2005 to Oct. 2006. Hence, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Hon ble High Court held in favour of the Revenue, after setting aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the quantum of the penalty amount under Section 76. Hence, he prayed that the appeal may be remanded back to the adjudicating authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short issue involved in this appeal is the penalty aspect. On perusal of the Reconciliation statement of service tax paid by the appellant, shows that they have r .....

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