Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
per dr. chittaranjan satapathy heard both sides. the impugned order demands 10% of the value of the exempted goods whereas the appellants have, according to ld. advocate, reversed proportionate amount of credit in respect of inputs used in the exempted goods. he also argues that in view of retrospective amendment made to the finance act, 2010, the proportionate reversal of credit made by the appellant is in order and now there is no requirement to pay 10% of the value of the exempted products. keeping in view the retrospective amendment made to the cenvat credit rules by the finance act, 2010, we waive requirement of predeposit, and set aside the impugned order, remand the matter to the original authority to reexamine the matter in the light of the retrospective amendment. the appellants shall be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing fresh orders. the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... rightly held that the charges collected by the bis towards marking fee is part and parcel of the cost of the services rendered by the agency. in terms of section 67 of the finance act, 1994, value of taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. therefore, marking fee charged by bis is ..... the head technical inspection and certification services. the lower appellate authority upheld the rejection of the refund claims. hence this appeal. 2. i have heard both sides. section 65 (105) of chapter 5 of finance act, 1994 defines the expression technical inspection and certification services as under :-technical inspection and certification means inspection or examination of goods or process of material or any .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... of rs.57,200/-, the proper course to have been followed was to issue notice for revision in terms of section 84 of the finance act, 1994 and proceed to pass fresh orders in revision. 3. in the light of the above discussion, i uphold the ..... tax together with interest was demanded and a penalty of rs.57,200/- was imposed under the provision of section 76 of the finance act, 1994 as amended for belated payment of tax during the period 1.9.1999 to 30.9.2002. show-cause ..... notice dated 22.6.2004 under section 74 was issued proposing modification of the order-in-original by revising the penalty imposed under section 76 ..... @ rs.100/- for every day during the period of delay in payment of tax and dropping proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 78. the commissioner (appeals) set aside the enhancement of penalty on the ground that it cannot be said that the imposition of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
the assessees paid service tax together with interest on being pointed out by the excise authorities, prior to the issue of show-cause notice. their contention before the bench, therefore, is that no notice for imposition of penalty could have been issued under the provisions of section 73(3) of the finance act, 1994 and hence seek setting aside of the penalties imposed under the provisions of section 76 and 78 ibid. 2 i have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled by the decision of the tribunal in shanti casting works vs. cce, coimbatore - 2009 (15) str 219 holding that penalty cannot be imposed when service tax and interest is paid prior to issue of show-cause notice. following the ratio of the above decision i set aside the penalties imposed under the provisions of section 76 and 78 of the finance act, 1994 and allow the appeal.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... tax on advertisements on bus panels, bus stations etc., and paid tax of rs.90,653/-. they challenged the imposition of penalty upon them under the provisions of section 76 and 78 of the finance act, 1994, on the ground that they were not aware of their liability during the relevant period and inspite of raising this plea before the authorities below, no ..... awareness, and with any deliberate intention to evade payment of service tax. i, therefore set aside the penalties by extending the shelter under the provisions of finance act, 1944. accordingly, i set aside the penalties under section 76 and 78. penalty imposed under section 77 is however upheld, since there is no reason to interfere with the same. the appeal is thus partly allowed.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
in this case, commissioner (appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under section 78 of the finance act, 1994, while upholding the demand of service tax on man-power recruitment service together with interest. the revenue has challenged setting aside of the penalty. 2. i have heard both sides. the lower appellate authority has extended the benefit in terms of section 80 of the finance act, 1994 by accepting that the appellants had put forth reasonable cause for non-payment of the tax. there is no challenge to the extension of protection in terms of section 80 in the appeal filed by the revenue. the only ground in the appeal of the revenue is that section 78 provides for imposition of penalty. 3. in these circumstances, i see no merit in the appeal of the revenue, which is accordingly dismissed.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... 2008 (12) str 613 (tri.-chen.) and r. sukumar vs. cce, trichy - 2008 (11) str 118 (tri.-chen.), i, set aside the penalty under section 76 and 78 by granting relief under section 80 of the finance act, 1994. however, i uphold the penalty of rs.1000/-, under section 77 as the ingredient of suppression of non-submission of returns is not relevant under this ..... the assessees only challenge the imposition of penalty under the provisions of section 76, 77 and 78 of the finance act, 1994, on the ground that non-payment of service tax during the relevant period was entirely due to ignorance on the part of the assessees to pay service tax on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
the issue common in both these appeals is penal action taken against the assessees under the provisions of sections 77 and 78 of the finance act, 1994. 2. i have heard both sides. the services provided by the assessees are manpower recruitment supply. their contention is that being individuals, and they were not aware of their liability to pay service tax is plausible. the department has not discharged the burden of establishing the knowledge on their part of liability to pay tax during the period in dispute, so as to hold them guilty of suppression. i, therefore, set aside the penalty on both the assessees under section 78 of the finance act by extending the protection under section 80 ibid. however, i see no reason to interfere with the imposition of penalty under section 77 and accordingly uphold the same. 3. the appeals are thus partly allowed as above.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
in this case, the assessees have obtained a certificate for full and final settlement of tax arrears under section 96 (2) of the finance act, 2008 in respect of dispute resolution scheme, 2008. the certificate is dated 31.10.2008 and grants also immunity from institution of any proceedings for imposition of penalty under the finance act, 1994, in respect of matters covered in the aforesaid declaration made by the assessees. in view of the above settlement, the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
the respondents are not present. heard shri c.rangaraju, sdr, appearing for the department. the department is in appeal on the ground that the lower appellate authority has upheld the penalties imposed under section 77 and section 78 of the finance act, 1994, but has set aside the penalty under section 76 of the finance act, 1994. i am of the view that the impugned order does not require any interference in view of a number of decisions of the tribunal holding that one of the penalties imposed under section 76 or under section 78, is sufficient keeping in view the subsequent amendment to the law making these penalties mutually exclusive. as such, the departments appeal is rejected.
Tag this Judgment!