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

Harsh Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Nashik

2016 (9) TMI 239 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Demand of interest - Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 - construction service in respect of commercial or industrial building or civil structures discharge of service tax when demanded as ascertained by himself failure to pay interest on demand SCN for the demand of interest Held that: - provisions of Section 75 would apply even in the case wherein an assessee deposits service tax liability on his own ascertainment and there is no need to issue any show cause notice to an assessee for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. - ST/543/2011 - A/89257/16/STB - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Nilesh Rathi, Advocate for the appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: AKP/146/NSK/2011 dated 30/06/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nasik. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le under Finance Act 1994. The appellant had during the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 rendered the services to one M/s Gemini Instratech, Ambad, Nasik and received payment for the services rendered. On being pointed out, appellant on their own ascertainment or as ascertained by the department discharged the entire service tax liability by challans dated 12th March 2008 and 18th March 2010. Neither the appellant nor the department raised any issue regarding correctness or otherwise of the computation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lty imposed under Section 76 to ₹ 100/-per day during which the failure to pay service tax continued. 5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that issue of show cause notice has been wrong as the period of limitation also applies for the demand of interest. It is his submission that the amount of tax liability was deposited at the instance of the department and no formal order of the confirmation was made. It is his further submission that there was no show ca .....

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
 


Share:            

|| 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