N & N Chopra Consltants Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner, Goods & Service Tax &Central Excise, Delhi East
Service Tax
2018 (7) TMI 1678 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2019 (24) G. S. T. L. 550 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-7-2018
SERTA 20/2018, C.M. APPL. No. 29038-29039/2018
Service Tax
MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. A. K. CHAWLA JJ.
Appellant Through: Mr. Karan Sachdev, Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Kunal Kapoor, Advocates
Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh Senior Standing Counsel
O R D E R
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL)
The question which the assessee urges in this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, is that the multiple penalties imposed in the circumstances of the case were excessive.
The assessee is engaged in providing commercial coaching and training services and therefore, he is subject to service tax levy under the Finance Act, 1994. It was registered as a service tax a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ne hundred eighty eight only) against the assessee i.e. M/s. N.N. Chopra Consultant Pvt. Ltd. On the value of taxable service amounting to Rs. 2,44,74,902/- under Commercial training and Coaching Service and the same be recovered from them under Section 73(1) read with section 68 of the Act;
ii. I confirm the demand of Cess amounting to Rs. 58,740/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand seven hundred forty only) on the amount of service tax shown in para 70.1 against them under Section 95 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 read with Section 66 of the Act;
iii. I confirm the demand of SHEC amounting to Rs. 29,370/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand three hundred seventy only) on the amount of service tax shown in para 70.1 against them under Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2007;
iv. Interest at the appropriate rate on the above amounts is also chargeable from them under Section 75 of the Act on the aforesaid amount till the date of payment of the service tax;
v. I confirm the demand of service tax a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed by the Commissioner rejecting the contention that in the circumstances of the case, the contention about the excessive imposition of penalties both under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant urges that the Tribunal fell into error, in upholding the two penalties and relies upon the judgments in M/s. Raval Trading Company vs. Commissioner of Service Tax – 2016 (42) STR 210 (Guj) and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court-in the case of First Flight Courier Ltd. – 2011 (22) STR 622 (P&H) and Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana (STA No. 13 of 2010 decided on 12-72010), 2011 (24) STR 173 (P&H). It is submitted that the appellant had deposited the additional amount of Rs. 5,06,270/- after the show cause notice was issued and had paid Rs. 34 lakhs prior to that. Given these facts, he states that imposition of any penalty under Section 76 was itself unjustified.
The facts of this case, in the opinion of this cou
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =