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 grants immunity under Finance Act, 1994 Section 80 for lack of malafide intent.</h1> <h3>M/s AK GANDHI CARS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR</h3> M/s AK GANDHI CARS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR - TMI Issues:Appeal against penalty under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Entitlement for immunity under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in providing services, maintained separate units with consolidated financial records. An audit revealed discrepancies in service tax payment compared to the balance sheet. The Adjudicating Authority determined a sum payable as service tax, which the appellant paid along with interest. However, penalties were imposed under the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalties. The appellant sought immunity under Section 80 of the Act, arguing that discrepancies were unintentional due to differing bases for tax calculation. The appellant contended that they paid tax based on consolidated accounts, not willfully suppressing facts. The respondent argued that the appellant's admission of liability and payment demonstrated mens rea, justifying the penalties.Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted the initial discrepancy in the show-cause notice, which reduced after reconciliation. The balance sheet figures were based on receivable basis, while tax was payable on a receipt basis during the relevant period. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal found no malafide intention on the appellant's part to suppress facts regarding tax liability. Despite not disputing the liability and paying with interest, the appellant's actions did not indicate malafide intent. Consequently, the Tribunal granted immunity under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, setting aside the imposed penalties. The Tribunal waived the penalties but confirmed the service tax demand along with interest.Therefore, the judgment granted immunity to the appellant under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, based on the lack of malafide intention in the discrepancies, setting aside the penalties while confirming the service tax demand with interest.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
