Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ashu Cables Groups

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Ashu Cables Groups

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 01, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41998

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/41998
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, S T T.V.
Decided On: Mar 01, 2006
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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Ashu Cables Groups

Excerpt

2. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the commissioner appeals waived the penalty imposed under sections 75, 76, 77 and 78 of finance act.3. we have gone through the impugned order. in the impugned order, the commissioner appeals held that the demand for differential service tax does not survive. in view of the evidence on record and also waived imposition of penalties. we find as the show cause notice was issued to the respondents for demanding differential amount of service tax, which was dropped, by the commissioner (appeals) and revenue is not questioning that portion of the impugned order, therefore, the question of imposition of penalty does not survive. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the Commissioner Appeals waived the penalty imposed under Sections 75, 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act.

3. We have gone through the impugned order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner Appeals held that the demand for differential service tax does not survive. In view of the evidence on record and also waived imposition of penalties. We find as the show cause notice was issued to the respondents for demanding differential amount of service tax, which was dropped, by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Revenue is not questioning that portion of the impugned order, therefore, the question of imposition of penalty does not survive. The appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Ashu Cables Groups Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, S T T.V.