Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Pulse Engineering Versus CCE & ST Chandigarh And (Vice-Versa)

2017 (9) TMI 1073 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Non-payment of service tax - case of appellant is that the appellants were doing the job work as well as the work of maintenance and repair. Due to bona-fide mistake, they showed the maintenance and repair charges under the ledger relating to job work - Held that: - The appellants, who are registered under this service and regularly paying the Service Tax for this service, are expected to be aware of repair charges and job work. They failed to establish that the job charges as reflected in the b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nfirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand, interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. - However, the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of 25% of the reduced penalty in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Sunshine Steel Corporation Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2017 (4) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Section 78(I) is pari-materia to Section 11AC and the second .....

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 78, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 52 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that penalty under Section 76 may not be justified if the penalty has already been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. - Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/749/2009 & ST/689/2009 - A/61810-61811/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 15-9-2017 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sembly modules for Radio Communication Systems. Nonpayment of Service Tax was detected on scrutiny of their balance sheet for the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and their ledger accounts relating to job works and other records. The appellants had admitted that their engineers had visited the premises of Army Units and Army provided the necessary tooling and equipment required for the repair work. The appellants received repair charges. Hence, the allegation was that the service was taxa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#8377; 2,40,336/-. Penalty under Section 78 of ₹ 2,40,336/- was also imposed. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner upheld the demand, interest and the penalty under Section 78 of the Act. but dropped the penalty under Section 76. Aggrieved from the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants have filed this appeal. The Revenue has also filed an appeal being aggrieved from the dropping of the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellants conten .....

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 Sunshine Steel Corporation Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I Central Excise Appeal No.47 of 2016 (O&M). Date of decision: 22.03.2017. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that the appellants were registered under maintenance and repair services and were very much aware about their liability especially when they were sending the staff to the Army Unit for repair work on regular basis. The appellants have deliberately and knowingly suppressed the value of taxable service in the guise of job charges. He a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the maintenance and repair services and had provided the repair services to the Army by sending their technicians. The appellants, who are registered under this service and regularly paying the Service Tax for this service, are expected to be aware of repair charges and job work. They failed to establish that the job charges as reflected in the balance sheet are different from the repair and maintenance service charges. Besides, there is no job work challans or any other documentary evidence .....

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 appellants would be entitled to the benefit of 25% of the reduced penalty in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Sunshine Steel Corporation Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- 6. Under the opening part of Section 11AC, the appellant was liable to pay the duty as also the penalty equal to the duty so determined. A party is, however, absolved of the liability to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

010. the first proviso, therefore, does not come to the appellant's assistance. Section 78(I) is pari-materia to Section 11AC and the second and third proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are pari-materia to first and second proviso respectively of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act. Since they had already paid the full amount of duty determined under Section 73(2) and the interest before the issue of show cause notice thereby meeting the requirement of second proviso of Secti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t 1994. In this regard, reference is made to Para 5 of the said judgment, which is reproduced below:- "5. We are unable to accept the submission. Section 76 provides for penalty for failure to pay the amount while Section 78 provides for penalty for suppressing the taxable value. Section 78 is, thus, more comprehensive and provides for higher amount, even if technically, the scope of Sections 76 and 78 is different, penalty under Section 76 may not be justified if penalty had already been i .....

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
 


|| 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.