Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2018 (2) TMI 1248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed under Section 32 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 came to be rejected. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is engaged in the service of security agency and manpower recruiting agency. It is registered with the Service Tax Department. Pursuant to the premises visited by the officers of the Service Tax Department on 19.02.2013, a show cause notice dated 18.04.2013 came to be issued. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of prevailing fluid situation about applicability of the service tax to security service agency, the service tax was not paid for the particular disputed period. However, after the visit by the officers, the service tax was substantially paid. 2.1 The petitioner thereafter filed an application, mak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ers, non-deposit of fill amount of the disclosure, may not be the ground for rejecting such application. It is submitted that short deposit is attributable to the human error in calculating the service tax and interest thereon and was completely unintentional. It is submitted that in any case, the Settlement Commission ought to have given an opportunity to make good the short payment, which the petitioners, upon realizing the calculation error, would always be ready and willing to deposit. 4. As against this, learned Advocate for the Department, referring to the affidavit in reply on behalf of the Service Tax Division, submitted that the order of the Settlement Commission is justified in view of the proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecision before the CESTAT in an appeal filed by the Revenue. 6. At the outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 32F(1), which read as under:- "Section 32F. Procedure on receipt of an application under section 32E. - (1) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1) of section 32E, the Settlement Commission shall, within seven days from the date of receipt of the application, issue a notice to the applicant to explain in writing as to why the application made by him should be allowed to be proceeded with, and after taking into consideration the explanation provided by the applicant, the Settlement Commission, shall, within a period of fourteen days from the date of the notice, by an order, allow ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as represented through the jurisdictional Commissioner. Thereafter, in connection with the hearing, a communication dated 19.12.2014 came to be issued, informing the petitioners about date of hearing on 08.01.2015. In-between, there does not appear to be any communication with regard to the application before the Settlement Commission. The affidavit in reply on behalf of the Department also does not indicate any proceedings in-between. 8. With regard to the ground regarding pending appeal before the CESTAT, it would be pertinent to mention that the so called pending proceeding referred to by the Settlement Commission pertains to coercive action initiated under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 freezing five bank accounts of the petitio....