2018 (10) TMI 1076 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Penalty – Non-payment of Service Tax – import of certain services from over-seas entities – reverse charge mechanism – Section 66A of Finance Act – Held that:- Since the appellant did not pay the service tax attributable to receipt of taxable service, the CERA audit officers have rightly pointed out such mistakes. Being a Service Tax registered assessee, the appellant was required to comply with the statutory provisions, including payment of service tax within the stipulated time frame.
–
Penalty rightly upheld – appeal dismissed – decided against appellant. – Appeal No. ST/86912/2018 – A/87457/2018 – Dated:- 25-9-2018 – Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Pradeep Sawant, C.A. for appell
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nterest. The department initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant, which were culminated into adjudication order dated 31.01.2017, wherein service tax demand of ₹ 35,54,314/- along with interest was confirmed. The said amount deposited by the appellant prior to issuance of show-cause notice was appropriated in such order. Besides, the adjudication order was also imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal against the adjudication order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 12.03.2018 has upheld the adjudged demand confirmed against the appellant. Thus, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant, at th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
authoritative judgements pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant had received the taxable services from over-seas entities and was liable to pay service tax under Section 66A of the Act, as recipient of service, under reverse charge mechanism. Since the appellant did not pay the service tax attributable to receipt of taxable service, the CERA audit officers have rightly pointed out such mistakes. Being a Service Tax registered assessee, the appellant was required to comply with the statutory provisions, including payment of service tax within the stipulated time frame. It is not the case of the appellant that for the first time it had re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =