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 limits penalty to 25% for tax evasion, emphasizes justice.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE Versus VS. PATIL</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE Versus VS. PATIL - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 567 (Tri. - Bang.) , 2008 (88) RLT 772 (CESTAT - Ban.) , [2009] 19 STT 334 ... Issues:1. Waiver of penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner (Appeals).Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. The respondent, a Service Tax Registration holder, provided Rent-A-Cab services to M/s. BSNL and failed to pay the service tax on the taxable value received. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act. The respondent appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking a waiver of the imposed penalties, which was granted. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the penalties were wrongly waived based on the lack of reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax and the alleged deliberate suppression to evade tax liability.The Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the respondent's contention that there was no mala fide intention to evade service tax and that the lapses were excusable under Section 80 of the Act. However, the Revenue contended that the respondent's registration with the department and prior payment of service tax indicated a deliberate attempt to evade tax payment. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument, noting that the respondent should have continued to pay service tax for the subsequent period as well. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal ordered a penalty limited to 25% of the service tax amount under Section 78 of the Act, emphasizing that this penalty would serve the interests of justice.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to waive the penalties and ordering the payment of a penalty limited to 25% of the service tax amount. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that there was deliberate suppression with intent to evade service tax liability, justifying the imposition of a penalty under Section 78 of the Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
