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>Court upholds dismissal of Revenue's appeal, affirms no suppression of facts, penalties set aside.</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF ST., BANGALORE Versus ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECH. P. LTD.</h3> COMMR. OF ST., BANGALORE Versus ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECH. P. LTD. - 2010 (18) S.T.R. 265 (Kar.) , [2010] 27 STT 343 (KAR.) , [2010] 30 VST 671 (Kar) Issues:1. Appeal against order of Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal2. Levy of penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 19943. Appeal against setting aside of penalties by Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals-I]4. Appeal by Revenue against order of Appellate Commissioner5. Dismissal of appeal by CESTAT6. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 19447. Arguments regarding non-payment of Service tax and penalties8. Finding of no suppression in meeting Service tax liability9. Examination of appeal under Section 35G of the Act10. Lack of error or illegality in Tribunal and Commissioner's orders11. Dismissal of the appealAnalysis:1. The judgment involves an appeal by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The Tribunal had rejected the appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals-I] against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeal], which had set aside penalties levied on the assessee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The penalties were related to non-payment of duty and suppression of facts regarding Service tax for a specific period.2. The genesis of the case lies in a show cause notice issued to the assessee, a cable operator providing internet services, proposing a total levy of Service tax for a certain period. The adjudicating authority levied Service tax and penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals-I] later set aside the penalty under Section 73 but found no suppression warranting penalty under Section 78.3. The Revenue, aggrieved by the order setting aside penalties, filed an appeal before the CESTAT. However, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal, concurring with the Commissioner's decision. Subsequently, the present appeal under Section 35G of the Act was filed challenging the Tribunal's decision.4. The arguments presented by the Revenue's counsel emphasized the automatic levy of penalties under Section 78 due to non-payment of Service tax within the extended period. However, the Court did not find merit in these submissions. The Court noted the absence of suppression in meeting Service tax liability based on factual findings by the adjudicating and appellate authorities.5. The Court concluded that there was no scope for interference in the Tribunal's order as there was no suppression of facts regarding the Service tax liability. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals-I]. The Court found no error or illegality in the decisions of the lower authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 