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.

Dixon Electronics Vs. Cce

Dixon Electronics vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 19, 2007
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46681

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

Dixon Electronics

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2008)12STJ404CESTATNew(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. in this case, the entire service tax together with interest was paid by the appellants, who were found to have been providing services of maintenance and repair. the appellants challenged the impugned order on the ground that, they were not to pay penalty due to instant payment of tax together with interest.2. i have heard the learned jcdr for the respondent and perused the record. none is present for the appellants in spite of notice. i find that the issue has been settled by this tribunal in the case of mett macdonald ltd. v. cce, jaipur 2006 (2) str 524, holding that, imposition of penalty is sustainable when tax liability was paid only after the inquiry was conducted by the department. therefore, there is no merit in the appellants' contention that the payment of demand of tax together with interest, prior to the issue of the show cause notice, would absolve them of the liability to pay penalty.3. following the ratio of the above decision, i uphold the impugned order of imposition of penalty and reject the appeal.(dictated and pronounced in the open court on the 19^th day of december, 2007)

Full Judgment

1. In this case, the entire Service Tax together with interest was paid by the appellants, who were found to have been providing services of maintenance and repair. The appellants challenged the impugned order on the ground that, they were not to pay penalty due to instant payment of tax together with interest.

2. I have heard the learned JCDR for the respondent and perused the record. None is present for the appellants in spite of notice. I find that the issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Mett Macdonald Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur 2006 (2) STR 524, holding that, imposition of penalty is sustainable when tax liability was paid only after the inquiry was conducted by the Department. Therefore, there is no merit in the appellants' contention that the payment of demand of tax together with interest, prior to the issue of the show cause notice, would absolve them of the liability to pay penalty.

3. Following the ratio of the above decision, I uphold the impugned order of imposition of penalty and reject the appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on the 19^th day of December, 2007)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial