Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jas One Securities

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Jas One Securities

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 20, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30104

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/30104
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram
Decided On: Feb 20, 2003
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Jas One Securities

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)2STR80

Excerpt

1. the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the commissioner of (appeals), who has condoned the delay in filing of quarterly return in st-3 (for service tax) for the quarter ending march, 1995. it is the contention of the revenue that although the plea of the respondents that they were new in business and were not aware of the rules and regulations of the newly introduced service tax was sufficient to condone the delay for the quarter ending december, 1994 (which was already condoned by the adjudicating authority), the same reason could not hold good for the quarter ending march, 1995.2. i have considered this submission and perused the impugned order.the assessee/respondent has not shown reasonable cause for failure to comply with the requirements of filing return even after they have become aware of the requirements under the provisions of the service tax enactment. therefore, i hold that lower appellate authority was not justified in condoning the delay for the second quarter viz., quarter ending march, 1995 and hold that penalty was justified for delay in this quarter, accordingly, i set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the revenue.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of (Appeals), who has condoned the delay in filing of quarterly return in ST-3 (for service tax) for the quarter ending March, 1995. It is the contention of the Revenue that although the plea of the respondents that they were new in business and were not aware of the rules and regulations of the newly introduced service tax was sufficient to condone the delay for the quarter ending December, 1994 (which was already condoned by the adjudicating authority), the same reason could not hold good for the quarter ending March, 1995.

2. I have considered this submission and perused the impugned order.

The assessee/respondent has not shown reasonable cause for failure to comply with the requirements of filing return even after they have become aware of the requirements under the provisions of the service tax enactment. Therefore, I hold that lower appellate authority was not justified in condoning the delay for the second quarter viz., quarter ending March, 1995 and hold that penalty was justified for delay in this quarter, Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Jas One Securities Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram

Land Acquisition Adjudicating authority reasonable cause The service set aside