GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 149 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (8) TMI 149 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Levy of penalty u/s 76 - waiver u/s 80 - reasonable cause - assessee had paid the entire demand along with interest before the adjudication process - Held that:- assessee's business was closed down and they were not in a position to pay the service tax. It is my view that the financial difficulty is not a valid reason for waiving penalty when a statutory payment had not been made - The parameters of section 80 of the Act would not apply as no reasonable .....

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 by issuance of a SCN dated 18.03.2010 proposing a demand of ₹ 3,05,570/- for non-payment of service tax for the period from January 2009 to September 2009, under Section 73 besides proposal for penalty under Section 76 of the Act. However, the appellant assessee paid the demand along with interest proposed in the SCN before adjudication. On adjudication, the Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest proposed in the SCN and appropriated the same. Further a penalty under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in payment of service tax; that Section 80 of the Finance Act would override section 76 of the Finance Act. Due to financial hardship the appellant was not in a position to continue his business and was forced to close down the business. Due to this compelling situation, there was delay in payment of service tax along with interest. However, he submitted that the service tax along with interest was paid before the adjudication proceedings. He further submitted that penal provisions of Section 7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

R 281 He further relied on the following case laws wherein penalty was not imposable when there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade service tax. 4. Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa 1978 (2) ELT (J159) (SC) 5. Price Water House Coopers Dev. Associates Ltd. Vs. CST Bangalore 2008 (11) STR 43 Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order. 3. Ld. AR, Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC, appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and submitte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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