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

2016 (9) TMI 44 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (9) TMI 44 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2017 (49) S.T.R. 229 (Tri. - Del.) - Differences in value appearing in balance sheet and returns - Authorized Service Station Business Auxiliary Services Demand of tax and interest imposition of penalty under section 78 or 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 - waiver of penalty section 80 of the Finance Act,1994 Held that: - When the Balance sheet entries and the value as reflected in ST-3 returns are based upon different accounting system, and when the entir .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

24-8-2016 - Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) None appeared for the Applicants Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa: Nobody appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, I heard the Ld. AR for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned orders. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order, as they arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances. 2. As per the facts on record appellant is registered with the service tax department unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

proposing confirmation of demand to the tune of ₹ 1,39,966/-. The said demand was contested by the appellant on merits as also on limitation. However, it is seen that the appellant had deposited the same along with interest, even prior to the initiation of the proceedings. 4. During the adjudication, the appellant placed certain reconciliation statement on record and the demand was reduced to ₹ 1,02,648/- along with imposition of penalties to the extent of ₹ 25,662/- i.e. to 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

that no penalty was deposited by the assessee along with deposit of duty and interest and as such benefit of 25% of penalty cannot be extended to them 6. Both the appeals were dealt with separately by Commissioner (A). Whereas he rejected the assessee s appeal and by separate order in the Revenue s appeal the penalty was enhanced to 50% of the duty amount. Hence two appeals by the assessee against the two different orders of Commissioner (A). 7. After carefully going through the impugned orders .....

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