9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder was confirmed by the Tribunal following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in [2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT], which cannot be faulted with. When there is a deliberate suppression, the provision mandates imposition of penalty. Hence, we find no reason why the Authorities should depart from imposing such penalty as mandated by the provisions of the Act. - Decision in the case of Dhandayuthapani Canteen - Vs - Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [2015 (1) TMI 812 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] followed - Decided against assessee. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3418 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 4-6-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enal action, the Adjudicating Authority refrained from imposing any penalty on the assessee, since the appellant had furnished the details of the amount collected and paid the service tax due before issuing the show cause notice. 3. The said order of the Adjudicating Authority was revised by the Commissioner of Central Excise holding that since the assessee had failed to pay service tax due on the value of the taxable service rendered by them, they were liable to pay penalty and hence imposed penalty of ₹ 200/- per day in respect of service tax payable during the period from 16.6.2005 to 17.4.2006 under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, penalty of 2% per month in respect of the tax payable during the period from 18.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a revision, the Commissioner (Appeals) initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty. The said order was confirmed by the Tribunal following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) ELT.3 (S.C.)], which cannot be faulted with. When there is a deliberate suppression, the provision mandates imposition of penalty. Hence, we find no reason why the Authorities should depart from imposing such penalty as mandated by the provisions of the Act. 8. Similar view was taken by this Court in the decision dated 12.12.2014 in C.M.A.No.2440 of 2008 in the case of Dhandayuthapani Canteen - Vs - Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein this Court, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
