9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 603 - HC - Service TaxRecovery of arrears alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the decisions rendered in ATUL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DAMAN 2008 (7) TMI 834 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ; M/S. INDIAN COFFEE WORKERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, ALLAHABAD 2014 (4) TMI 407 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ; and COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S MOTOR WORLD OTHERS 2012 (6) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , while upholding the demand and interest, set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent with regard to penalty imposed under Sections 70, 77 and 78 of the Act. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner is entitled for refund of penalty already paid by them. It is reported that a representation seeking refund of penalty, was pending before the first respondent - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to recovery notice dated 08.01.2013 demanding arrears of revenue. Appeal against order-in-original dated 26.12.2011. Refund of penalty imposed under Sections 70, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act. Analysis: The Writ Petition challenged a recovery notice issued by the 1st respondent for arrears of revenue amounting to ?4,74,204 along with interest and penalty. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal against the order-in-original dated 26.12.2011, which was disposed of by the Appellate Authority upholding the demand and interest but setting aside the penalties imposed under Sections 70, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act. The petitioner had also made a representation seeking a refund of the penalty, which was pending before the first respondent. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents conceded to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel. The Court examined the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 09.02.2016, where, based on various legal precedents, the penalties imposed under Sections 70, 77, and 78 of the Act were set aside while upholding the demand and interest. Consequently, the Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for a refund of the penalty and to refund the amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order. The judgment disposed of the writ petition accordingly, with the connected miscellaneous petition being closed without any costs. The key outcome was the direction for the refund of the penalty already paid by the petitioner, as per the decision of the Appellate Authority and the Court's order.
|
