Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex. Navi Mumbai Versus M\/s Godrej Consumer Product Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 314 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 24-8-2018
Appeal No. ST\/86956\/2018 – A\/87165\/2018
Service Tax
SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
\nShri Onil Shivdikar, AC (AR) for Appellant
\nShri Shreyas Shrivastava, Manager for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Raju
\nThis appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order of Commissioner (Appeals) waiving penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
\n2. Learned AR argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly waived the penalty under Section 76 and 78 by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. He argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has appropriate<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Owners' Association – 2009 (14) STR 289 (Bom), the matter had become very clear that the respondent is required to pay Service Tax. In these circumstances, the respondent's failure to pay Service Tax till January, 2012, when Audit pointed out, is clearly sufficient to invoke Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex. Navi Mumbai Versus M\/s Godrej Consumer Product Ltd.Service Tax2018 (9) TMI 314 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 24-8-2018Appeal No. ST\/86956\/2018 – A\/87165\/2018Service TaxSHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Onil Shivdikar, AC (AR) for Appellant Shri Shreyas Shrivastava, Manager for Respondent ORDER Per: Raju This appeal has been … Continue reading “Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex. Navi Mumbai Versus M\/s Godrej Consumer Product 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-13570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13570","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=13570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13570\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the situation was revenue neutral and therefore, no suppression or mis-declaration can be made to invoke against them. He pointed out that whatsoever tax was paid by them they have availed the CENVAT Credit of the same and in these circumstances Section 78 cannot be invoked. He further argued that the appellant had paid the entire Service Tax along with interest as soon as t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n