M\/s. Greenland Traders Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1250 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 19-2-2019
Appeal No. ST\/40776\/2013 – Final Order No. 40339\/2019
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Appellant
\nMs. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are registered for providing service under Manpower Recruitment and Supply agency Service and were supplying manpower to M\/s. TATA Coffee Limited and its various units. During the course of audit of the accounts, it was noticed that the appellant had n<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n tax liability. Even though the service tax was paid along with interest before issuance of show cause notice, the department has issued show cause notice and confirmed the penalty under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. – 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar.) and argued that as per sub-section (3) of Section 73, if service tax along with interest is paid up on being pointed out by the officers, no penalty ought to have been imposed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Greenland Traders Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise MaduraiService Tax2019 (2) TMI 1250 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 19-2-2019Appeal No. ST\/40776\/2013 – Final Order No. 40339\/2019Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, … Continue reading “M\/s. Greenland Traders Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai”<\/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-16929","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16929","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=16929"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16929\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16929"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16929"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16929"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. The appellant is contesting only the penalt<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n