Holcim Services (South Asia) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central GST & CE, Mumbai
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 1076 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 25-9-2018
Appeal No. ST\/86912\/2018 – A\/87457\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Pradeep Sawant, C.A. for appellant
\nShri M.P. Damle, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nBrief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of providing taxable services, defined under the Finance Act, 1994. During the disputed period, the appellant had imported certain services from over-seas entities and was liable to pay service tax under 'reverse charge mechanism', as recipient of such services. Ho<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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 received the taxable services from the over-seas entities. Since the appellant regularly receives the services from overseas entities, it cannot be said that the appellant was ignorant about the statutory provisions for non-payment of tax within the stipulated time. Hence, considering over-all facts and circumstances of the case and various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the learned Commissioner (Appeal<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Holcim Services (South Asia) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central GST & CE, MumbaiService Tax2018 (10) TMI 1076 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 25-9-2018Appeal No. ST\/86912\/2018 – A\/87457\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Pradeep Sawant, C.A. for appellant Shri M.P. Damle, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Brief facts … Continue reading “Holcim Services (South Asia) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central GST & CE, Mumbai”<\/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-14570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14570","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=14570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14570\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submits that the appellant is not contesting the service tax demand along with interest confirmed in the adjudication order. However, he submits that the benefit of sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Act, should be available to the appellant for non-imposition of penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Act.
\n3. On the other hand, learned D.R. appearing for Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugne<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n