Commissioner of Central Tax, Gst East Versus Mphasis Ltd
Service Tax
2018 (3) TMI 185 – CESTAT BANGALORE – TMI
CESTAT BANGALORE – AT
Dated:- 28-12-2017
ST\/CROSS\/20958\/2017 in ST\/ 21501\/2017-SM – 23316\/2017
Service Tax
Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member
\nShri Madhusharan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) – For the Appellant
\nShri K. Parameshwaran, Advocate – For the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: SS GARG
\nThe Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dt. 13\/06\/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has dropped the penalties under Section 77 & 78.
\n2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondents are registered with the Department under the category of Information Technology Software Service and Information Technology Enabled Services. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent for various demands. After following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demands of being service tax not paid on r<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d upon the decisions in the following cases: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d. [2011 (267) ELT 481 (Kar.)] = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of Central Tax, Gst East Versus Mphasis LtdService Tax2018 (3) TMI 185 – CESTAT BANGALORE – TMICESTAT BANGALORE – ATDated:- 28-12-2017ST\/CROSS\/20958\/2017 in ST\/ 21501\/2017-SM – 23316\/2017Service TaxShri SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri Madhusharan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) – For the Appellant Shri K. Parameshwaran, Advocate – For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The Revenue has … Continue reading “Commissioner of Central Tax, Gst East Versus Mphasis Ltd”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\ni. Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur [2014(36) STR 408 (Tri. Mum.)]
\nii. Raffles Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, C&ST, Bangalore [Final Order No.22199\/2017 dt 21\/09\/2017]
\niii. Srishti Software Applications (P) Ltd. +1 Vs. CCE, C&ST [Final order No.22201-22202\/2017 dt. 22\/09\/2017]
\n5 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order and submitted that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) after examining all the facts have dropped the penalty which is justified because there was no suppression of facts on the part of the respondent. He further submitted that imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act is in contravention of the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act. He further submitted that the service tax along with interest has already been paid by the assessee before the issuance of the show-cause notice. He also submitted that Section 73(3) of the Finance Act is in unambiguous<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nix. Manipal County Vs. CST [2010(17) STR 474 and which has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2014(36) STR J188
\nx. Landis + GYR Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017(49) STR 637]
\n6. After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusal of material on record and the various judgments relied upon by the respondent, I am of the considered view that Section 73(3) is very clear as it says that if the tax is paid along with interest before the issuance of the show-cause notice, then in that case, show-cause notice need not be issued. In the present case, I find that is on account of bona fide mistake that the service tax was not paid and as soon as it was pointed out by the audit part, the assessee paid the service tax along with interest. Further I find that there was no material brought on record by the Revenue to establish that there was suppression on the part of the assessee. Further on identical facts, this Tribunal in the case of Bh<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n