9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 438 - HC - Service TaxExtended period of limitation - ample ground to allege suppression of facts with malafide intent or not - levy of penalties - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-VII COMMISSIONERATE, VERSUS M/S TATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LTD. 2023 (2) TMI 734 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT whereby, on a similar question of law raised by the Revenue, this Court considering an earlier decision arising from the very same order did not entertain the Revenue s Appeal and which came to be dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law had arisen for consideration in view of the prior pronouncement. Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
The appeal against the order passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai is being challenged by the revenue. The substantial question of law raised is whether the penalties imposed under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act and Rule 15 of CCR, 2004, should have been upheld despite the allegation of suppression of facts with malafide intent. Details of the judgment: Issue 1: Penalties under various sections of the Finance Act and CCR, 2004 The Appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal which set aside the demand invoking an extended period and also set aside all penalties. The Respondent referred to a recent order by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in a similar case involving telecom companies like Tata Teleservices, Idea Cellular, and Reliance Telecommunication. The Court noted that the question of law raised in the present case was identical to the one considered in previous decisions. The Court held that it cannot deviate from the consistent view taken in prior cases and dismissed the appeal based on the reasons of previous decisions. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal based on the consistent view taken in previous decisions regarding penalties under different sections of the Finance Act and CCR, 2004.
|
