Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Pan Business Lists Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.,C.E. & S.T., Noida

100% EOU - demand - invocation of proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 - Held that: - the entire demand in the show-cause-notice is raised by invoking proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The requirement under said proviso is that suppression or misstatement etc. is to be established separately and intention to evade Service Tax is to established separately for invoking said proviso. The appellant are service receiver and they are entitled for c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Amitosh Moitra, CA for the Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Department ORDER Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is preferred against Order-in-Appeal No.NOI/EXCUS/000/APPL/147-148/14-15 dated 29.08.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant a 100% EOU was issued with a show-cause-notice dated 20th March, 2013, wherein .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant and appellant have paid the consultant in Foreign Exchange. Such expenditure in Foreign exchange was indicated in their balance sheet. It appeared to Revenue that the remittances made for the above stated purpose were liable to be subjected to provisions of Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 and appellant being receiver of the services and the service provider i.e. Consultant not having any business establishment in India, the appellant were liable to pay Service Tax on the service charg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct of Service Tax is hit by limitation, since, the show cause notice could not establish that there was any suppression on the part of appellant or there was any intention to evade payment of Service Tax. They had also submitted before the Original Authority that their accounts were audited by Revenue on 13-14th October, 2008 and again on 06.10.2009 and further subsequently, on 04th January, 2010 and therefore, allegation of suppression was claimed to be baseless. The Original Authority did not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

consultant in Germany was also submitted to the audit party and that therefore, allegation of suppression is baseless. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) dismissed the appeal, preferred by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire demand is raised by invoking proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, they were the service recipient and even if they wer .....

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