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 →

M/s Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Bangalore

2016 (10) TMI 82 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Levy of penalty - delayed payment of service tax under reverse charge - on account of oversight, the appellant omitted to consider an expenditure during the relevant year - service tax was paid as per the observation of the Audit Party - Held that:- the contention of the appellant that he bonafide believed that he is not liable to pay service tax but during the audit, the audit party informed him that he is liable to pay service tax, then he immediately paid the entire service tax along with int .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t ORDER The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 43/2014 dated 22.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Bangalore. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of seats, carpets and other parts and accessories of motor vehicles falling under Chapters 94, 87 .....

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 to the above foreign company toward installation charges. However, due to communication gap between the Accounts Department and the Taxation Wing of the appellant, on account of oversight, the appellant omitted to consider an expenditure of ₹ 47,33,400/- for the financial year 2009-10 and ₹ 65,973/- for the financial year 2010-11 and hence did not consider the above value while making payment of service tax under Section 66A. During the course of audit by the Internal Audit Wing of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ession. The adjudicating authority passed the Order-in-Original dated 01.11.2013 and imposed mandatory penalty of ₹ 4,94,335/- under Section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also upheld the imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icer of such payment, then the said Section does not give any power to such officer to issue a show-cause notice in respect of the tax so paid and such issuance of show-cause notice is sans force of law and accordingly, not sustainable and tenable. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following case laws : (i) CCE vs. Adecco Felxione Workforce Solutions Ltd. [2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar.) (ii) Jas Telecom Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E. [2015 (326) E.L.T. 750 (Tri.- Bang.)] (iii) Shriram EPC Ltd. vs. .....

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