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 →

Shri Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur

2016 (9) TMI 44 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 entire value stands reflected in the balance sheet, the difference in the value .....

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 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 under the category of Authorised services station and Business Auxiliary Servi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid 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 the extent of 25% of duty confirmed under section 78 of the Finance Act and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd 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 as also the memo of appeal and after carefully considering the submission .....

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