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 →

Altech Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore-service Tax

2016 (9) TMI 792 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Recovery of interest and benefit of reduced penalty - interest calculated as averaged month-wise as the month-wise break-up was not available - Held that:- this case needs to be remanded and I accordingly remand the case to the Additional Commissioner with a direction to redo the calculation of interest on the actual amount due month-wise instead of averaged amount. It is directed that the learned Additional Commissioner before redoing the calculation will give an opportunity to the appellants 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

pellant Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is arising from the letter dated 7.11.2013 issued by the Commissioner directing the appellant to pay the arrears of ₹ 4,40,057/- immediately and produce the copy of the challan as proof within 15 days of the receipt of the letter failing which recovery will be initiated to recover the said arrears in terms of provision of Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Vide letter dated 7.11.2013, the Commissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellant. This letter was issued in consequence of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 2.4.2013 vide which the Additional Commissioner passed the following order: 46. In view of the above, I pass the following order. (i) I hold that the services of powder coating provided by the assessee to M/s. B.L. Kashyap and Co., for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2011 is classifiable under the category of Business Auxiliary Services as per Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994; (ii) .....

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 reduce it to ₹ 1,89,600.00 being the differential service tax on the Erection and Commissioning and Installation service for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2009 as discussed in Para 31 above and I demand ₹ 1,89,600.00 only (Rupees One Lakh Eighty nine thousand six hundred only) from the assessee; (iv) I demand an amount of ₹ 1,34,468/- (Rupees One lakh thirty four thousand four hundred and sixty eight only ) being the differential service tax on the Works Contract 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

e Act, 1994 since I am imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Act, ibid; (viii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) under the provisions of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1944 for failure to obtain registration & for failure to file ST3 returns. (ix) I impose a penalty of ₹ 3,49,760/- (Rupees three lakhs forty nine thousand seven hundred sixty only) being the aggregate total of the total service tax due and demanded at Sl Nos.(ii), (iii) and (iv) above u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

priate interest as demanded at (vi) above and the reduced penalty within 30 (thirty) days of the receipt of this order. 2.1 Aggrieved by the recovery notice, the appellant has filed the present appeal and submitted that Order-in-Original dated 2.4.2013 was received by the appellant on 6.5.2013. As per the order, appellant has paid the service tax together with interest and penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and the details of the payments are given below: (a) Service Ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner issued the letter dated 10.7.2013 wherein it is stated that the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% is not available to the appellant for the reason that interest has not been paid and further directed the appellant to pay the balance interest of ₹ 1,77,737/- and penalty of ₹ 2,62,320/-. The appellant filed reply to the said letter and in the meanwhile one more letter dated 27.8.2013 was issued. Thereafter, appellant represented before the Commissioner seeking his intervention 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

 

 

 

 

 

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