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 1142 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (11) TMI 1142 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Demand - whether the appellant is eligible for cum-tax benefit - TV/Radio programme production service - Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that: - On perusal of the ledger account produced by the appellant and comparing with the invoices, it is noted that the appellant has received amount as stated in the invoices. This reveals that the appellant has not collected any separate amount as service tax. Therefore the case of the appellant tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by way of remand. - Appeal No.ST/921/2042 - FINAL ORDER No.A/30867/2016 - Dated:- 20-9-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member (J) Shri P. Ramakrishna, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Nagaraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) which upheld the demand of service tax, interest and penalty. 2. The appellants are providing TV/Radio programme production service. During the audit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

along with interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty. It was also proposed to appropriate ₹ 11,12,910/- paid by the appellant towards demand of service tax and also to appropriate an amount of ₹ 2,66,596/- paid by the appellant towards interest. After adjudication, the authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 12,35,301/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The amount paid by appellant was ordered to be appropri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt including the service tax, though in the invoices the amount of service tax was not shown separately. The learned counsel therefore contended that the liability of the appellant on the amount received for the services rendered would be reduced to ₹ 11,12,910/- instead of ₹ 12,35,301/-. The Learned counsel also submitted that the said amount of ₹ 11,12,910/- was paid by the appellant along with interest discharging the full liability according to appellant, immediately on bei .....

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 is inclusive of service tax, the service provider is liable to pay service tax on the whole amount that is collected from the customer, such amount being the gross amount charged by the service provider. He also argued that the authorities below have anaiysed the issue whether the appellant is eligible for cum-tax benefit and therefore has confirmed the demand of service tax. Further that the appellant is guilty of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax for the reason that th .....

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