Government appoints National Customs Targeting Centre-Passenger director as customs officer with powers under PNR Regulations, 2022 and Sections 30A, ...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, setting aside confirmation of penalties under s.77 and s.78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found the appellant had been granted personal hearing, had filed ST-3 returns and paid the re-determined service tax (including the s.35F pre-deposit as read with s.83), and that the proceedings were based on data furnished by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities. There was no evidence of deliberate suppression, fraud or collusion warranting invocation of the extended limitation proviso. In consequence, penalty imposition was held legally untenable and the impugned order modified accordingly.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, setting aside confirmation of penalties under s.77 and s.78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found the appellant had been granted personal hearing, had filed ST-3 returns and paid the re-determined service tax (including the s.35F pre-deposit as read with s.83), and that the proceedings were based on data furnished by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities. There was no evidence of deliberate suppression, fraud or collusion warranting invocation of the extended limitation proviso. In consequence, penalty imposition was held legally untenable and the impugned order modified accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
