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.

Planner India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Planner India (P) Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 30, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46099

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

Planner India (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2008)12STJ61CESTATNew(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order in so far as imposition of penalty of rs. 12,047/- under section 76 of the finance act, 1994. the tribunal vide final order no. 309/2006-sm (br) dated 14.2.2006 remanded the matter to the commissioner (appeals) to examine the imposition of penalty under section 76 on the ground whether the appellant was in confusion in respect of payment of tax under the service tax on architectural services.2. heard both sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the impugned order that service tax on architectural, service was levied on 16.10.98 and consulting engineering services was levied on 7.7.97. the service tax on the above mentioned services, in the present case, is related to the year 2000-2001. the commissioner (appeals) observed that there is no evidence on record that the appellants had sought any clarification from the department, prior to their registration regarding tax liability on the above services. he also discussed in detail the letters issued by them with the superintendent of central excise in respect of procedure of filing of their return and payment of tax. i find that the appellant failed to give any explanation for late payment of tax. therefore, i do not find any reason to interfere the order of the commissioner (appeals). accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order in so far as imposition of penalty of Rs. 12,047/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 309/2006-SM (BR) dated 14.2.2006 remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the imposition of penalty under Section 76 on the ground whether the appellant was in confusion in respect of payment of tax under the service tax on architectural services.

2. Heard both sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the impugned order that service tax on architectural, service was levied on 16.10.98 and consulting engineering services was levied on 7.7.97. The service tax on the above mentioned services, in the present case, is related to the year 2000-2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there is no evidence on record that the appellants had sought any clarification from the department, prior to their registration regarding tax liability on the above services. He also discussed in detail the letters issued by them with the Superintendent of Central Excise in respect of procedure of filing of their return and payment of tax. I find that the appellant failed to give any explanation for late payment of tax. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial