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 Service Tax demand, reduces penalties, waives late fees</h1> <h3>Varad Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Aurangabad</h3> Varad Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Aurangabad - 2016 (44) S.T.R. 660 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Demand of Service Tax under GTA service2. Imposition of penalties under Sections 70, 77, 76 & 783. Applicability of transportation subsidy on service tax liability4. Arithmetical error in tax liability calculation5. Waiver of penalties under Section 76 & 78 invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the demand of Service Tax under GTA service, along with the confirmation of interest and penalties under Sections 70, 77, 76 & 78. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of Service Tax, maintained penalties under Sections 76 & 78, but reduced the late fee and set aside the penalty under Section 77. The appellant disputed the quantification of demand, citing a transportation subsidy received from the Government. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their case.2. The appellant argued that the tax liability arose due to an arithmetical error, indicating no intention to evade service tax. The Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mazagon Dock Ltd., stating that a subsidy from the Government should not be included in the gross value of service for taxation purposes. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed the re-quantification of service tax liability by excluding the subsidy amount.3. The Tribunal held that the appellant had reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax due to the arithmetical error and promptly paid the tax upon identification of the mistake. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the penalties under Sections 76 & 78 invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The late fee imposed by the Commissioner was upheld, and the appeal was partly allowed based on the findings regarding the subsidy and arithmetical error in tax calculation.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised in the appeal, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 