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>Commissioner (Appeals) corrects interest demand error, Supreme Court upholds decision</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD Versus PEPSI COLA INDIA MARKETING CO.</h3> COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD Versus PEPSI COLA INDIA MARKETING CO. - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 246 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under Section 76 for delayed payment of Service tax.2. Demand of interest under Section 75 not proposed in the show cause notice.3. Requirement of demand notice or written notice for confirmation of interest.4. Accrual of interest as a consequence of payment without separate notice.Analysis:1. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, noting that the adjudicating authority had demanded interest under Section 75 instead of imposing penalty under Section 76 for delayed payment of Service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the adjudicating authority had exceeded the scope of the show cause notice, citing precedents like BAYER ABS LTD. v. C.C.E., Vadodara-I and Sunrise Structural & Engg. (P) Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai, highlighting that findings beyond the charges in the show cause notice are unsustainable. The appeal filed by the Revenue against this order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.2. The revenue contended that no demand notice or written notice is necessary for the confirmation of interest, as it is a liability arising as a consequence of payment. The revenue relied on the Tribunal's decision in TCP Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madurai and the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow v. Kanhai Ram Thekedar. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order and allowed the revenue's appeal based on the argument that accrual of interest is automatic, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous judgment.3. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted that the accrual of interest is automatic, and no separate notice is required for its service. The Supreme Court emphasized that the order of the High Court deleting the interest levied by the authorities due to the absence of a notice was not justified. Similarly, the Tribunal in the case of TCP Ltd. held that interest levy is mandatory on belated payment of tax. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reconsider the matter on its merits, as the impugned order was deemed to be against the established legal principles.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised regarding the imposition of penalties, demand of interest, the necessity of notices, and the automatic accrual of interest as a consequence of payment.
TaxTMI 