M\/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. Versus GST & CE (Chennai North)
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1104 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 16-1-2019
ST\/42368\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40116 \/2019
Service Tax
Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR)
\nORDER
\nThe dispute relates to the period July, 2014 to February, 2016. By this appeal the assessee is challenging the penalty levied by the adjudicating authority and confirmed in the impugned order by the Commissioner GST & CE (Appeals), under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
\n2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Shri Muthuvenkataraman, Ld. Advocate appearing for th<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n , LTU, Bangalore Vs. ADECCO Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. Versus GST & CE (Chennai North)Service Tax2019 (2) TMI 1104 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 16-1-2019ST\/42368\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40116 \/2019Service TaxShri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) ORDER The dispute relates … Continue reading “M\/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. Versus GST & CE (Chennai North)”<\/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-16886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16886","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=16886"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16886\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 2. 2017 (349)ELT 133 (Mad.) CCE, Salem Vs. Madras Auminium Co. Ltd.
\n 3. 2013 (288) ELT 161 Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur.
\n3. Per contra, Ld. AR opposes the arguments put forth by the Ld. Advocate. He submits that only on verification of documents during audit the material fact had come to the notice of the department and hence allegation suppression of facts made them liable to imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act ibid.
\n4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through various decisions relied on by the Ld. Advocate. Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 envisages two situations viz. 1. failure to pay service tax and 2. for reasons of <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n