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 SMS News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Gotmare and Associates Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

2017 (11) TMI 713 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Non-payment of service tax - architect services - construction of complex service - time limitation - penalty - Held that: - the appellant were collecting the service tax and were not depositing to the Government account. They have also not declared the receipt of the service charges in their ST.3 Return. They have also not declared the correct receipt of the service charges in their Income Tax Return, therefore the malafide intention of the appellant is clearly established, accordingly the dema .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d with service tax department under the categories of Interior Decorator, Architect, Technical Consultant, Maintenance and Repairs Services, Construction of Complex and Works Contract Services. On scrutiny of records of the appellant for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 it was observed that they had rendered taxable services of architect services and construction of complex service but did not pay the service tax on such service. Therefore the show cause notice was issued to the appellant and the 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

pearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is not contesting the demand on merit, however he submits that the demand is not sustainable being time bar. In this regard he submits that the issue relates to the classification being a question of law no malafide intention can be attributed to the appellant, accordingly the demand is not sustainable on limitation. He also submits that since there is no malafide intention penalties imposed under Section 76, 77 & 78 are also 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

ii) Coramandel Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chennai - 2009 (13) STR 542 (Tri.-Chennai) (iv) Commissioner Vs. Coramandel Fertilizers Ltd. - 2012 (25) STR J126 (Mad.) (v) Ashok Sitaldas Punshi & Associates Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Nashik - 2011 (21) STR 395 (Tri.-Mumbai) (vi) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Mumbai - 2007 (214) ELT 306 (Tri.-Mumbai) (vii) Commissioner of C.Ex. Vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. - 2010 (22) STR 622 (P & H) (viii) Coastal E .....

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.