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 →

M/s MeritTrac Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore

2016 (11) TMI 141 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Imposition of penalty u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service - import of services from the foreign companies - levy of tax on import of service u/r 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Sections 73, 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - suppression of facts - Held that: - Section 73(3) is very clear as it says that if tax is paid along with interest before issuance of the show-cause notice, then in that case, show-cause notice shall not be issued. In thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not justified and bad in law. Moreover, in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded any finding on suppression of facts by the appellant with an intention to evade tax - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20111/2014-SM - Final Order No. 20796/2016 - Dated:- 20-9-2016 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Kethan. L., C.A. For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER 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

ted services from the foreign companies. As per Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, import of service is liable to service tax. On being pointed out by the Department, the appellant paid service tax amounting to ₹ 6,15,091/- along with interest of ₹ 2,07,281/- during October 2009. It was also noticed that the appellant has availed Cenvat credit on input services such as Sodexho passes (Rs. 9,275/- and interest of ₹ 1,580/- which was paid by the appellant) and on em .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmissioner vide his order dated 29.8.2011 confirmed the proposal made in the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dropped the penalty imposed under Section 76 but upheld the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted 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

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) Auto Transport Services v. Commissioner of C. Ex Jaipur-II [2006(3) S.T.R. 330 (Tri.-Del.)] (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-I vs. Hazi Abdul Razzaque [2006 (4) S.T.R. 37 (Tri. .....

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