2018 (10) TMI 564 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Monetary limit involved in appeal – on account of the monetary limits in these appeals, which are lesser than the threshold limit fixed by the Board's circular dated 11.7.2018, she seeks permission to withdraw the appeals – appeal dismissed as withdrawn. – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1004 and 1005 of 2018 Dated:- 3-9-2018 – Mr. T. S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. V. Bhavani Subbaroyan JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar, Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr.Akhil Suresh COMMON JUDGMENT T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J. These appeals have been filed by the Revenue challenging the common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai in Final
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it crystal clear that the liability commenced from 18.04.2006? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in law in deleting the mandatory penalty imposable under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, when there was a deliberate omission and evasion of payment service tax, which was detected pursuant to investigation? (iv) Whether equal penalty is not imposable for deliberate evasion of payment of service tax when the same was invoked in Show Cause Notice in the remand cases? 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has placed before this Court a communication sent by the Deputy Commissioner (Legal), Office of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem dated 17.08.2018, s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =