Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Fermanta Biotech ltd. Versus CCE, Chandigarh

2016 (8) TMI 244 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Reverse charge mechanism services received from commission agents located outside India SCN issued for appropriation of amount with interest and penalty Held that: - The appellant is receiving services from foreign based commissions agent locat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

avor of the appellant, therefore, the charges of suppression of facts cannot be alleged on the appellant - provisions of section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 are attracted no SCN no penalty decided in favor of appellant. - ST/54287/2015-S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that during the period i.e. 2006-07 to 2009-10, the appellant received services from foreign based commission agents. On these services, the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

w cause notice was issued to the appellant for appropriation of the amount already paid as service tax along with interest and to impose penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Both the lower authorities have confirmed the demand along wit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submits that as appellant has received services from foreign based commission agents and there required to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism but the appellant was not known of these technicalities, therefore, they could not pay service t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lant be set aside. 4. On the other hand, The Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that as appellant has not disclosed the fact that the commission paid to foreign based commission agents which tantamount to suppression of fact .....

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
 
 


|| 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