Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (11) TMI 241 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
Penalties imposed for non-discharge of service tax liability for the period April 2009 to March 2010 on Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI challenged the penalties imposed on the appellant for failing to discharge service tax liability for services provided to a specific company. The appellant argued that they had paid the service tax liability and part of the interest before the show-cause notice was issued. The remaining interest was deposited following the Tribunal's direction. The appellant cited a similar case related to maintenance and repair services where penalties were set aside under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Revenue department supported the lower authorities' findings.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Member (Judicial) found that the appellant had fulfilled the service tax liability and part of the interest before the show-cause notice. The remaining interest was also paid as per the Tribunal's direction. Considering the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the precedent set by a previous case, the Member set aside the penalties imposed. The service tax liability and interest confirmed by the lower authorities were upheld, while the penalties were annulled. The decision was based on the Tribunal's previous ruling and the applicability of Section 73(3) to the current case.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the penalties being set aside based on the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The service tax liability and interest were upheld, and the decision aligned with the precedent established in a similar case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates