Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 706 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (11) TMI 706 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Imposition of penalties u/s 76, 77 and 78 - evasion of tax on commission - Cable Operator services - non-accountal of the subscription amount collected from the customers in full - Held that: - The present controversy of non payment of Service Tax has arisen soon after the introduction of the new service. The claim of the appellant that they were under a bonafide belief that they are liable to Service Tax is limited to commission retained by them seem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s under the then section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Penalties u/s 76, 77 and 78 waived - appeal disposed off. - Service Tax Appeal No. 186 of 2010 - Final Order No. 54817 /2016 - Dated:- 7-11-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri A K Batra, CA with Shri Ruchir Bhatia and Shri Varun Gaba, Advocates for the Appellants Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per V Padmanabhan: The appellant is a service provider of net and cable op .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n full and evaded Service Tax to the extent of ₹ 2,32,772/- for the period August, 2002 to March, 2005 on the commission amount received by the appellant from MSO, the Department was of the view that Service Tax is required to be paid as under Business Auxiliary services and amount of ₹ 42,259/- was received as commission on which the Service Tax amount of ₹ 3,874/ were found to be unpaid. Proceedings were initiated vide Show cause notice dated 19.9.2007 for demands for the dem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Bhatia and Shri Varun Gaba, learned Advocates appearing for the Appellants and Shri Sanjay Jain, learned DR appearing for the Revenue. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire Service Tax demand stand deposited by the appellant along with interest and 25% of penalty imposed under section 78. The penalty imposed under section 77 and 78 together also stand paid. He further submitted that the payment of Service Tax is not being challenged. However, he prayed for wai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cable signals for further distribution to subscribers. The appellant have admitted that they have not paid the Service Tax on the ground which was paid to the MSO under the bonafide belief that they were required to pay Service Tax only on the amount retained by them. However, on being pointed out, they have deposited the Service Tax demand along with interest and 25% penalty payable under section 78. While they are not pursuing the challenge against the Service Tax demand, their prayer is that .....

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