Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
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. - Appeal Nos. ST/749/2009 & ST/689/2009, Appeal No. ST/749/2009, Appeal No. ST/689/2009 - Final Order No. 61810-61811/2017 - Dated:- 15-9-2017 - Mrs. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the appellants had provided services relating to repair of PCB assembly 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 recei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act, 1994 at the rate of ₹ 200/- per day subject to maximum of ₹ 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CCE Vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. 2011 (22) STR 622 (P&H). 2. M/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 sup .....

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 merits, the appellants have no case because they were engaged 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. Beside .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 6. 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. 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 dut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

O, namely, 02.03.2010. The balance amount was paid only on 16.09.2010. 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 not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has already been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act 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 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

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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