9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant. From this it can be inferred that there was no attempt at subterfuge or suppression. Moreover, the promptitude with which the determined tax liability was deposited along with interest reinforces the inference. Though the first appellate authority has pointed out to the lack of any evidence of non-collection of tax from their customers, we cannot accept that assertion to be tenable. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intendent (AR) for the respondent ORDER The appellant, M/s Chaney Co, is before us on the short point of imposition of penalty by the original authority to the extent that it has been upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune in order-in-appeal no. P-I/RKS/258/2010 dated 9th December 2010. 2. The case against the appellant, who is registered as provider of erectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot warranted in terms of section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. 4. Heard the Learned Authorized Representative. 5. The determination of tax liability was a consequence of routine scrutiny of service tax returns followed by summons of the balance sheet of the appellant. From this it can be inferred that there was no attempt at subterfuge or suppression. Moreover, the promptitude with which the dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proceedings that led to this appeal. Of particular note is the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Pradeep Enterprises [2009 (16) STTR 419 (Tri-Del)]. 7. Considering the circumstances narrated above, we hold that the commission received shall be subject to cum-tax method of computation of taxable value. We also hold that the proceedings were not warra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
