2018 (6) TMI 713 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Management Consultant Service – non-discharge of service tax – penalty – Held that:- Though the appellant argues that this amount is not received towards consideration and the amount is only towards ticket charges, no documentary proof has been placed by the appellants. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that these are not consideration/charges received for the services rendered is not acceptable – demand of tax with interest upheld.
–
Penalty u/s 78 – Held that:- As the appellant has declared the amount in their accounts from where the department has come to know about the receipt of the same, penalty imposed is unwarranted.
–
Appeal allowed in part. – Appeal No. ST/549/2010 – 4055
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d for such services for the period from May 2002 to February 2004. Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand the service tax of ₹ 23,076/- alongwith interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and the penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, interest and the penalty imposed under section 78. But however, set aside the penalty imposed under section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld.CounceI, Sh.Hari Radhakrishnan submitted that the appellant has not received any consideration of the services, but has received only air ticket charges to the tu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
into consideration that the appellant has declared the amount in their accounts from where the department has come to know about the receipt of the same, we are of the considered view that the penalty imposed is unwarranted. The appellant has given sufficient explanation for failure to pay the service tax, since he was under the impression that the amount received being ticket charges is not subject to levy of service tax. We therefore set aside the penalty imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed without disturbing the duty amount or the interest thereof. The appeal is partly allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. 5. The departme
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =