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.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tops Detective and Security

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Tops Detective and Security

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 03, 2007
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46581

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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Tops Detective and Security

Legal References

Reported In
(2008)12STJ333CESTAT(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the commissioner (appeals) who has reduced the penalty from rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) to rs. 10,000/- (ten thousands) imposed upon the respondents herein, who are providers of taxable services in the category of "security agency services".2. i have heard the learned sdr and perused the record. none appeared for the respondents, inspite of notice.3. the commissioner has held that balance revenue to the extent of rs. 50,109/- only is involved in the present case and the appellant has paid all the dues on 28.8.2006. he has held that there was an arguable case on merit viz. the issue of determination of value of taxable services. these are the reasons given by him for reducing the penalty.the quantum of penalty to be imposed is a matter of discretion. no grounds have been made out in the present appeal for enhancement to the extent of penalty imposed by the original adjudicating authority.4. i therefore hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has reduced the penalty from Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) to Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousands) imposed upon the respondents herein, who are providers of taxable services in the category of "Security Agency Services".

2. I have heard the learned SDR and perused the record. None appeared for the respondents, inspite of notice.

3. The Commissioner has held that balance revenue to the extent of Rs. 50,109/- only is involved in the present case and the appellant has paid all the dues on 28.8.2006. He has held that there was an arguable case on merit viz. the issue of determination of value of taxable services. These are the reasons given by him for reducing the penalty.

The quantum of penalty to be imposed is a matter of discretion. No grounds have been made out in the present appeal for enhancement to the extent of penalty imposed by the original adjudicating authority.

4. I therefore hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial