Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

R.K. Teleshow Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, CE&ST) Hyderabad-II

2016 (11) TMI 1142 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

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 that the amount collected included the service ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 of accounts of the appellant, it was noticed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mount 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 appropriated. In appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) uph .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

voices 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 being pointed out by the Department; that therefo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vider 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 the appellant had neither disclosed the amounts .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version