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.

Proportions Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Proportions vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 18, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/45681

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Proportions

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. this is an appeal against the order of commissioner (appeals) enhancing the penalty imposed under section 76 from rs. 1,500/- to rs. 29,052/-on the ground that the penalty imposed earlier was less than the minimum prescribed under section 76. the commissioner (appeals) also found no justification in the order of the deputy commissioner for reducing the penalty under the provision of section 80.3. i find that in this case the appellants have taken registration in the year 2001 and were liable to pay tax from july 1998. even after taking the registration default continued for every quarter ranging from one to three months. the appellants have pleaded leniency on the ground that the service tax was paid along with interest at the time of registration and have also referred to the decision of the tribunal in the case of vijay sabadra v. commissioner 2007 (7) stj 13 (cestat-mum) and c.c.e., bhopal v. bharat security services & worker's cont. where penalty was held not liable to be imposed under extra ordinary tax payer friendly scheme. appellant in the present case is not covered by the scheme as he has taken registration in 2001 and continued to default after that, whereas under amnestly scheme the assessee have not taken any registration at all under ignorance or otherwise and at the time of registration paid entire tax along with interest. therefore these decisions are not relevant. however, looking into the circumstances that the major delay has taken place before taking a registration, i reduce the penalty from rs. 29,052/- to rs. 10,000/- only.

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) enhancing the penalty imposed under Section 76 from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 29,052/-on the ground that the penalty imposed earlier was less than the minimum prescribed under Section 76. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found no justification in the order of the Deputy Commissioner for reducing the penalty under the provision of Section 80.

3. I find that in this case the appellants have taken registration in the year 2001 and were liable to pay tax from July 1998. Even after taking the registration default continued for every quarter ranging from one to three months. The appellants have pleaded leniency on the ground that the service tax was paid along with interest at the time of registration and have also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Sabadra v. Commissioner 2007 (7) STJ 13 (CESTAT-Mum) and C.C.E., Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services & Worker's Cont.

where penalty was held not liable to be imposed under Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme. Appellant in the present case is not covered by the scheme as he has taken registration in 2001 and continued to default after that, whereas under amnestly scheme the assessee have not taken any registration at all under ignorance or otherwise and at the time of registration paid entire tax along with interest. Therefore these decisions are not relevant. However, looking into the circumstances that the major delay has taken place before taking a registration, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 29,052/- to Rs. 10,000/- only.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial