Tribunal Rejects Revenue's Appeal, Affirms Late Filing Not Grounds for Penalty The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT (Mumbai) rejected the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, affirming that delayed filing of returns is ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal Rejects Revenue's Appeal, Affirms Late Filing Not Grounds for Penalty
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT (Mumbai) rejected the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, affirming that delayed filing of returns is a procedural lapse and not grounds for penalty. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's compliance with service tax liability despite the filing delay, citing precedent in R.B. Bahutule v. CCE, Mumbai.
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT (Mumbai) rejected the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that delayed filing of returns is a procedural lapse and not grounds for penalty, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the respondent had discharged their service tax liability and only had a delay in filing returns. The appeal was rejected following the decision in the case of R.B. Bahutule v. CCE, Mumbai.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
