TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Pre-Deposit Rule, Warns Against Misleading Info</h1> <h3>THERMAX INSTRUMENTATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE</h3> THERMAX INSTRUMENTATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE - TMI Issues:Seeking modification of a miscellaneous order, incorrect computation of service tax demands, pre-deposit of service tax amount, discrepancy in payment of service tax, waiver of pre-deposit requirement, misleading the court, contempt of court proceedings.Analysis:The applicant sought modification of a miscellaneous order passed by the Tribunal, claiming to have paid the entire service tax amount in advance. They argued that the demands were incorrectly computed based on total gross amounts received, which included amounts already adjusted and other non-taxable items. Supporting documents were presented to demonstrate the alleged overpayment. The Tribunal reviewed the stay order, noting the disputed service tax amount of Rs. 18,08,28,228. Despite the applicant's assertion of full payment, discrepancies emerged during compliance hearings, leading to doubts about the actual payment made.During subsequent hearings, the applicant's counsel admitted to a genuine belief in having paid the entire service tax amount based on professional advice. However, the Tribunal emphasized the need for strict compliance with pre-deposit requirements and dismissed the modification application. Emphasizing the importance of upholding its previous orders, the Tribunal directed the applicant to make a further pre-deposit of the balance service tax amount within a specified timeframe.Furthermore, the Tribunal issued a show-cause notice to the applicant regarding potential contempt of court for allegedly providing misleading information. In response, the applicant tendered an unconditional apology, leading the Tribunal to withdraw the show-cause notice. The proceedings highlighted the significance of accurate representations before the court and the consequences of any misleading statements.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of pre-deposit compliance, accuracy in payment claims, and the court's authority to enforce truthful submissions. The Tribunal's decision underscored the need for transparency and adherence to legal procedures to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
TaxTMI 