9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haney & Co, is before us on the short point of imposition of penalty by the original authority to the extent that it has been upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune in order-in-appeal no. P-I/RKS/258/2010 dated 9th December 2010. 2. The case against the appellant, who is registered as provider of 'erection, installation and commissioning service' and 'maintenance and repair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Authorized Representative. 5. The determination of tax liability was a consequence of routine scrutiny of service tax returns followed by summons of the balance sheet of the appellant. From this it can be inferred that there was no attempt at subterfuge or suppression. Moreover, the promptitude with which the determined tax liability was deposited along with interest reinforces the inference. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Pradeep Enterprises [2009 (16) STTR 419 (Tri-Del)]. 7. Considering the circumstances narrated above, we hold that the commission received shall be subject to 'cum-tax' method of computation of taxable value. We also hold that the proceedings were not warranted and, for that reason, set aside the penalty under section 78. (Pronounced in Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
