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 →

M/s. S. Albert & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus CST, Chennai

2017 (7) TMI 493 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Penalty u/s 76, 77 and 78 - non-payment of service tax - appellant is engaged in providing Stevedoring/Customs House Agent and other connected services related to import/export of goods - Held that: - the provisions of Section 80 which are to the effect that no penalty would be imposed under Section 76,77, or 78 of the Finance Act, if the noticee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. What is a reasonable cause has to be seen and examined in each and every case. Admittedly, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, it stands observed by the lower authority that the appellant was recovering the said tax amount from their customers, in which case again their plea of financial difficult cannot be appreciated. In these circumstances, the applicability of Section 80 is ruled out. The law provides for imposition of penalty, which stands rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority - penalty upheld. - Scope of SCN - demand of ₹ 2,81,446/- on the ground that the said service tax amount got escaped fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a well settled law that the car hire charges and air travel charges incurred by the assessee in connection with their business are cenvatable input services and are available as Cenvat credit - credit allowed. - Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/41914/2016 - Final Order No. 41141 /2017 - Dated:- 6-7-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Shri J. Shankarraman, Advocate for the appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondents ORDER After hearing both .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of various services undertaken by them, a subsequent show cause notice dated 25.11.2011 was issued to them raising demand of duty of ₹ 15,72,641/- for the period April 2010 to September 2010. The notice also raised demand of ₹ 2,81,446/- for the earlier period on the ground that the same was not included in the earlier show cause notice dated 21.10.2010 and as such was missed out. Further, notice also proposed to deny the cenvat credit of ₹ 79,218/- availed by the appellant on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

succeed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 3.1 Ld. Advocate Shri J. Shankaraman appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that the demand of ₹ 15,72,641/- not paid by them during the period April 2010 to September 2010, is not being challenged by them as they are required to pay the same. The challenge in respect of such demand is confined only to imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Challenging the penalty, he s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and in the subsequent show cause notice on the ground that the same has escaped in the earlier show cause notice issued on 21.10.2010. He submitted that complete adjudication is required to be done by the officers and raising of demand subsequently by way of another show cause notice is neither proper nor judicious. 3.3 As regards Cenvat credit of ₹ 79,218/- availed in respect of car hire charges and air travel charges, he submitted that the same has been held to be input services eligible .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 80. 4.2 I have gone through the provisions of Section 80 which are to the effect that no penalty would be imposed under Section 76,77, or 78 of the Finance Act, if the noticee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. What is a reasonable cause has to be seen and examined in each and every case. Admittedly, such reasonable cause has to be a bonafide cause and must not be burdened with appellant assessee s intentions. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CST, Bang .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uld reasonably lead any ordinarily prudent and cautions man, to come to the conclusion that the same was the right thing to do. Only if it found to be frivolous, without substance or foundation, the question of imposing penalty would arise. 4.3 When the appellant s present case is viewed in the light of the above observations of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court, it is seen that the appellant was admittedly liable to pay the service tax in respect of services provided by him. Prior to the present .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the ST-3 returns and was not actually paid the service tax, their plea about the financial difficulties would have been appreciated as in that case it was only an issue of late payment of duty. In cases where such returns are not being filed, the plea of the assessee as regards financial difficulty for payment of duty cannot be appreciated in as much as it is not a case of delayed payment but a case of non-payment and non-intimation to the Revenue about their liability to pay. In any case, it st .....

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