Patrawala Corporation Versus Commissioner of CGST South Mumbai
Service Tax
2019 (3) TMI 417 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 21-1-2019
Appeal No. ST\/86286\/2018 – A\/85325\/2019
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nNone for appellant
\nShri O.M. Shivdikar, A\/C (AR) with Shri S.K. Hatangadi, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nNone appeared for the appellant, despite notice.
\n2. On perusal of the order sheet, I find that the matter was listed on 20.06.2018, 08.08.2018, 27.08.2018, 04.10.2018, 12.11.2018, 05.12.2018 and 18.12.2018 for final hearing. Only in one of the occasions, the appellant present itself for arguing its case. This shows the casual approach of the appel<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n llected the service tax amount from its client but did not deposit the same into the Government exchequer. For non-payment of service tax, the department proceeded against the appellant through issuance of show-cause notice. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 20.03.2013, wherein the service tax demand was confirmed and the amount deposited during adjudication proceedings was appropriated along with interest in the said order. Besides, the adjudication order also imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Act. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 has upheld the adjudged demand of penalty confirmed on the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred t<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Patrawala Corporation Versus Commissioner of CGST South MumbaiService Tax2019 (3) TMI 417 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 21-1-2019Appeal No. ST\/86286\/2018 – A\/85325\/2019Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) None for appellant Shri O.M. Shivdikar, A\/C (AR) with Shri S.K. Hatangadi, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty None appeared for the … Continue reading “Patrawala Corporation Versus Commissioner of CGST South 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-17197","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17197","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=17197"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17197\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17197"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17197"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17197"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n