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

2016 (9) TMI 793 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (9) TMI 793 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - 2017 (47) S.T.R. 39 (Tri. - Hyd.) - Imposition of penalty - Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - invokation of revisionary powers of the Commissioner - non-discharge of service tax liability on GTA services - Held that:- it is the case of the Department that as in the earlier SCN dated 28.02.2007 there was allegation of suppression of facts and because in the earlier Order-in-Original there was imposition of penalty under Section 78, the Commissioner in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

law that penalty under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously. - Decided against the Revenue - ST/656/2012 - Final Order No. A/30714/2016 - Dated:- 1-8-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. P.S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER The above appeal is filed by Revenue aggrieved by the non-imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of refined edible oi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

impose penalties. After adjudication the adjudicating authority vide order dated 18.03.2008 confirmed demand of ₹ 4,55,208/- towards service tax for the period January, 2005 to June, 2006 along with interest applicable there on. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of ₹ 1,30,802/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act besides imposing penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to impose penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. After adjudication vide revision order dated 15.03.2010 a demand of ₹ 13,65,630/- was confirmed. However, no penalties were imposed. The assessee then preferred an appeal to Tribunal. The CESTAT vide order dated 07.03.2011 remanded the matter for denovo adjudication. The adjudicating authority in denovo proceedings, vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2011 confirmed the service tax demand of ₹ 13,65,630/- along .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

after hearing the appellant/department and after perusal of the records. 4. The Learned AR appearing on behalf of the Department Sh. P.S. Reddy reiterated the grounds in appeal. He submitted that the impugned order calls for interference for the reason that the Commissioner has failed to impose penalty under Section 78 though the facts of the case reveal suppression of facts. The learned AR pointed out that the respondent had neither taken registration nor paid the service tax during the period .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

had imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 as well as Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He contended that for this reason the non-imposition of penalty under Section 78 is not legal or proper. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of department and have perused the records carefully. 6. At the outset, it is to be stated that the present impugned order emanates from the SCN dated 09.02.2010 which was issued under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 invoking the revisionary powers .....

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