Cce Vs. Chandra Motor

Cce vs Chandra Motor

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 05, 2008

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46954

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/46954
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Das
Decided On: Feb 05, 2008
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

Cce

Respondent

Chandra Motor

Excerpt

1. the revenue filed this appeal against the order of commissioner (appeals) whereby penalty under section 76 of the finance act, 1994 was set aside, 2. after hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, i find that the adjudicating authority found that the respondents deposited the tax on 10.10.2006 for the period 1^st april, 2005 to 31^st march, 2006.show cause notice was issued on 28.2.2007. the adjudicating authority confirmed the tax of rs. 16,280/- and imposed penalty of equal amount under section 76 of the finance act, 1994. the commissioner (appeals) set aside the penalty imposed under section 76. the revenue contended that the commissioner (appeals) had not appreciated the provision of section 73(4), which provides demand of tax in respect of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of tax.3. i find that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in detail, commissioner (appeals) observed that the respondent has acted in a bonafide manner which was not disputed by the revenue. so, commissioner (appeals) has rightly set aside the penalty. accordingly, i do not find any reason to interfere with the order of commissioner (appeals). the appeal of revenue is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside, 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, I find that the Adjudicating Authority found that the Respondents deposited the tax on 10.10.2006 for the period 1^st April, 2005 to 31^st March, 2006.

Show cause notice was issued on 28.2.2007. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the tax of Rs. 16,280/- and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not appreciated the provision of Section 73(4), which provides demand of tax in respect of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of tax.

3. I find that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in detail, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the respondent has acted in a bonafide manner which was not disputed by the Revenue. So, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the penalty. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal of Revenue is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Chandra Motor Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Das