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

Sankalp Constructions Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kolhapur

2017 (8) TMI 436 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Penalties u/s 77 and 78 - appellant have collected the service tax from their client and not deposited to the Government exchequer - Held that: - The reason given for non-payment of service tax in time is that the appellant was facing the financial crisis is not satisfactory, for the reason that if the appellant had bona fide intention, they would have declared the service tax liability in their ST-3 Return, but they failed to do so. Had the department not initiated the inquiry of non-payment of .....

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 Shri B.Kumar Iyer, Superintendent (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The appellant admittedly provide 'Works Contract Services and Consulting Engineering Services'. During the period July, 2008 to September, 2009 they provided services and recovered the service tax from the client but not paid to the Government exchequer. The appellant failed to file the ST-3 Returns in the prescribed format. Accordingly, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

73 (3). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant, therefore the appellant is before us. 2. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently submitted that the appellant have deposited service tax along with interest before issuance of show cause notice. The period involved is a normal period of demand, therefore it is the case of delay payment of service tax which at the most attract interest. He further submits that the non-payment of 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

198 (Bom.) (iii) Commissioner of Central Exicse, Mumbai-V Vs. Guru Plastics Works - 2010 (261) ELT 60 (Bom.) (iv) Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-II Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - 2017 (347) ELT 229 (Bom.) 3. On the other hand, Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that appellant have admittedly collected the service tax and not deposited in the Government account. They also not decla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pply. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) IWI Crogenic Vaporization System India Vs. C.C.E., C & S.T., Vadodara-II - 2016 (41) STR 290 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (ii) IWI Crogenic Vaporization System (I) P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., C & S.T., Vadodara-II - 2017 (47) STR 209 (Guj.) (iii) Mohtamaan Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Pune-I - 2016 (42) STR 568 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iv) Ketan Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., & S.T., Surat - 2014 (36) STR 196 (Tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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