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

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e-deposit. Tribunal has taken very broader view and held that party should be given opportunity for filing the application under section 35F of Central Excise Act 1994 so that their view could be considered for grant of waiver of pre-deposit - It is fit case need to be remanded back to Commissioner (appeal) for reviewing his Order-in-Appeal in view of conclusions drawn in above Tribunal order - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.ST/2879/2012-ST[SM] - - - Dated:- 18-4-2013 - Mr. Manmohan Singh, J. For the Appellant: Shri Yogesh Gupta Adv. For the Respondent: Shri V.P. Batrs, DR JUDGEMENT PER: MANMOHAN SINGH Issue involved in this appeal is that appellant has filled its return of Service Tax for the Tax period .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e tax amounted of Rs.3,12,053/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act 1994 along with the interest under section 75 and penalty under section 76 and 78, interest on late payment of tax for 17 days. Vide order in Appeal No. 244/ST/LKO/2012 Dated 30/05/2012 Commissioner (appeals) rejected their appeal on ground that they have not filled any application in terms of section 35 F of the Central Excise Act 1944. He further confirmed impugned Order-in-Original along with penalty and accordingly, rejected the appeal. Counsel of the appellant invited attention to the CESTAT judgment in the case of M/s Popular V/s CCE, Cochin. The normal procedure before dismissing the appeal for non-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... drawn in above Tribunal order. Counsel has also raised certain issue regarding mistakes occurred in tax demanded and tax deposited. He has claimed there was excess payment of duty of Rs.1,83,000/- in the month of April 2009 and also Rs.1,33,448/- in the month of September. Details are per chart as below: Month Service Tax payable Service tax paid Difference April-09 1874210.00 1874116.00 94.00 May-09 1201002.00 1121555.00 79447.00 June-09 1288704.00 1163018.00 125686.00 Aug-09 1094179.00 987353.00 106826.00 Total 5458095.00 5146042.00 312053.00 6. H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates