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.

The Management Group Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

The Management Group vs Commissioner of Service Tax

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 26, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/45421

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Management Group

Respondent

Commissioner of Service Tax

Legal References

Reported In
(2007)11STJ173CESTATNew(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the appellant challenges the order of the commissioner (appeals) upholding the order-in-original imposing penalty of rs. 20,551/- under section 76 of the finance act, 1994, for late payment of service tax.the appellant did not file any reply to the show cause notice.2. the learned authorised representative for the appellant submitted that the appellant had deposited the service tax along with interest on 13.8.02 and the service tax return was to be submitted on 25.4.02.there was delay of only about four months. it was submitted that since the appellant honestly deposited the dues, penalties should not have been imposed under section 76 of the act. moreover, there was a extra-ordinary-tax-payer friendly scheme, benefit of which has not been given to the appellant. it was also submitted that the appellant was suffering from asthma which should have been considered as a reasonable cause for waiving the penalty by applying the provisions of section 80.3. it is evident from the provision of section 76 that mens rea is not an ingredient for imposing the penalty thereunder unlike the provisions of section 78. the provision of section 76 have to be mandatorily applied unless the ground is made out for not imposing penalty as contemplated by section 80.4. in the present case, no particulars of ailment were given and it is now stated that appellant is suffering from asthma, which appears to be a chronic disease. no medical proof was submitted at the relevant time to show that during the period of delay, the sole proprietor of the appellant was incapacitated in any manner. the adjudicating authority in its discretion has held that no case was made out for imposing penalty under section 80. the appellate commissioner has concurred with the findings of the adjudicating authority. there is no case whatsoever made out for meriting admission of this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original imposing penalty of Rs. 20,551/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, for late payment of Service Tax.

The appellant did not file any reply to the show cause notice.

2. The learned authorised representative for the appellant submitted that the appellant had deposited the service tax along with interest on 13.8.02 and the service tax return was to be submitted on 25.4.02.

There was delay of only about four months. It was submitted that since the appellant honestly deposited the dues, penalties should not have been imposed under Section 76 of the Act. Moreover, there was a Extra-ordinary-Tax-Payer Friendly Scheme, benefit of which has not been given to the appellant. It was also submitted that the appellant was suffering from asthma which should have been considered as a reasonable cause for waiving the penalty by applying the provisions of Section 80.

3. It is evident from the provision of Section 76 that mens rea is not an ingredient for imposing the penalty thereunder unlike the provisions of Section 78. The provision of Section 76 have to be mandatorily applied unless the ground is made out for not imposing penalty as contemplated by Section 80.

4. In the present case, no particulars of ailment were given and it is now stated that appellant is suffering from asthma, which appears to be a chronic disease. No medical proof was submitted at the relevant time to show that during the period of delay, the sole proprietor of the appellant was incapacitated in any manner. The adjudicating authority in its discretion has held that no case was made out for imposing penalty under Section 80. The appellate Commissioner has concurred with the findings of the adjudicating authority. There is no case whatsoever made out for meriting admission of this appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial