Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sham Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Sham Agencies vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 31, 2004
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34777

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sham Agencies

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2006)STR93

Excerpt

1. in this appeal the appellants have questioned the validity of the imposition of penalty of rs. 1000/- under section 77 for late filing of the service tax returns and of rs. 5000/- under section 76 for delay in deposit of th service tax. the appellants have prayed for decision on merits. therefore, 1 have gone through the record and heard the learned dr.2. the perusal of the record shows that there was a delay of 90 days in submission of the service tax returns by the appellants and 84 days in making payment of the service tax. they have failed to justify these delays by offering any cogent and convincing explanation. the plea of the appellants that they were not conversant with the new service tax law and for that reason, the delay took place, has been taken note of by the authorities below and for that reason the authorities below have imposed less penalties under section 76 and 77 of the act. i do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) and the same is upheld. the appeal of the appellants is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal the appellants have questioned the validity of the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 for late filing of the service tax returns and of Rs. 5000/- under Section 76 for delay in deposit of th service tax. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. Therefore, 1 have gone through the record and heard the learned DR.2. The perusal of the record shows that there was a delay of 90 days in submission of the service tax returns by the appellants and 84 days in making payment of the service tax. They have failed to justify these delays by offering any cogent and convincing explanation. The plea of the appellants that they were not conversant with the new service tax law and for that reason, the delay took place, has been taken note of by the authorities below and for that reason the authorities below have imposed less penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Act. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial