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 overturns penalty for late tax payment due to substantial overpayment by sugar manufacturer</h1> <h3>M/s DSM Sugar, Asmoli Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II</h3> M/s DSM Sugar, Asmoli Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II - 2017 (3) G. S. T. L. 310 (Tri. - All.) Issues:- Imposition of penalty under section 76 for delayed payment of Service Tax.Analysis:The appellant, a manufacturer of sugar and molasses, paid Service Tax on reverse charge basis for GTA Services received but failed to claim abatement resulting in overpayment of Service Tax. The show cause notice alleged delayed payment of Service Tax from December 2006 to September 2007, proposing a penalty of Rs. 6,90,157. The Order-In-Original confirmed the penalty under Section 76, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently to the Tribunal.The appellant argued that they had paid three times the actual liability due to oversight in claiming abatement. The counsel presented returns and charts showing excess payment of Service Tax, which was later adjusted in subsequent return periods. The appellant contended that the penalty under Section 76 was unwarranted due to the substantial overpayment made, indicating no deliberate default or contumacious conduct.On the other hand, the revenue argued that the excess payment was not reflected in the returns, justifying the imposition of the penalty under Section 76. After considering the contentions, the Tribunal found no deliberate default on the appellant's part. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had deposited almost four times the actual tax levy, which remained with the revenue for a considerable period before adjustment. Citing the Hindustan Steel Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that penalty for minor failures should not be imposed, even if the law allows for it.Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and ruling that the penalty under Section 76 was not exigible due to the circumstances of the case and the substantial overpayment made by the appellant.
TaxTMI 