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.

Cce Vs. Shreeji Courier Services

Cce vs Shreeji Courier Services

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 24, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36603

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Shreeji Courier Services

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(117)LC818Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. this appeal is by the revenue against the order of the commissioner (appeals). the issue decided by the commissioner (appeals) is whether a penalty can be imposed for the late filing of return when the levy of service tax was at a nascent stage. the respondent is a mandap keeper.the commissioner (appeals) relied on the decision in the case of sajjan kumuar kariawala v. cce, allahabad 1997 (20) rlt 434 wherein it was held that the appellant was a new assessee and was not conversant with the filing of tax return and, therefore, no case for imposing a penalty was made out. he also relied on two other decisions reported in 2001 (43) rlt 51 (t) and and held that late filing of return is a procedural lapse and, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed by the lower authority under section 77 of the finance act, 1994.r.b. bahutule v. cce, mumbai , the tribunal held that delay in filing service tax returns and penalty thereof can be imposed on persons who failed to pay service tax and not on those who pay the tax but file the returns late. following the ratio of this decision, the appeal of the department is rejected and the order of the commissioner (appeals) upheld.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) is whether a penalty can be imposed for the late filing of return when the levy of service tax was at a nascent stage. The respondent is a mandap keeper.

The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision in the case of Sajjan Kumuar Kariawala v. CCE, Allahabad 1997 (20) RLT 434 wherein it was held that the appellant was a new assessee and was not conversant with the filing of tax return and, therefore, no case for imposing a penalty was made out. He also relied on two other decisions reported in 2001 (43) RLT 51 (T) and and held that late filing of return is a procedural lapse and, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed by the lower authority under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.R.B. Bahutule v. CCE, Mumbai , the Tribunal held that delay in filing service tax returns and penalty thereof can be imposed on persons who failed to pay service tax and not on those who pay the tax but file the returns late. Following the ratio of this decision, the appeal of the department is rejected and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial