9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA Versus M/s CITY CABLES [2011 (11) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where on similar issue, benefit was extended - Respectfully following the above judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which is the jurisdictional High Court, the amount of penalty is reduced to 25% - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - ST/239/2012 - A/60365/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 14-3-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Harvinder Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Harvinder Singh, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per Devender Singh The appellants are in appeals against the Order-in-Appeal No.387-388/CE/LDH/2011 dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of their ledgers that the amount of differential service tax had been calculated. He further stated that they had given the required information as soon as it was requested by the authorities and deposited the service tax and interest within 3 months of the start of the proceedings and much before the issue of show cause notice. He claimed that the penalty imposed was therefore not justified on them in view of the following case laws:- (i) M/s Nawaz Shipping vs. CCE ST, Rajkot - 2015 (9) TMI 477 CESTAT Ahemdabad (ii) M/s Fountain Head Architect Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyaderabad- 2017 (1) TMI 33 CESTAT Hyderabad (iii) CCE ST vs. M/s Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. - 2011 (9) TMI 114 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (iv) M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... un that the appellants obtained the service tax registration and provided the details of overseas commission. Thus there was willful suppression on the part of the appellants. He relied upon the following case laws:- (i) K. Madhav Kamath Brother Co. Vs. CCE, Mangalore - 2015 (38) STR 249 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) Quality Welding Works Vs. CCE, Ludhiana - 2011 (21) STR 187 (Tri.-Del.) 5. Considered the submissions made by both the sides and examined the records. 6.1 I find that the appellants are not contesting their liability to service tax and interest. They are only contesting the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. It is undisputed that the appellants had been receiving the services from overseas commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
