News Update

Elected Women of PRIs to Participate in CPD57 in New YorkIndia, New Zealand to have deeper collaboration in Pharma, Agriculture and Food ProcessingIndia’s manufacturing PMI marginally slides to 58.8 in April monthDefence Secretary & Secretary General of MoD, Indonesia to co-chair 7th Joint Committee meetingAbove 7000 Yoga enthusiasts practised Common Yoga Protocol in SuratManeka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDO
 
ST - There is no tax amount under dispute but only penalty, interest and late fee - pre-deposit of 10% of penalty is mandatory u/s 35F of CEA, 1944: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUGUST 07, 2017: THE matter was listed for maintainability of appeal for want of pre-deposit.

The appellant has submitted that a total service tax demand was raised of Rs.19,48,95,104/- against which an amount of Rs.19,83,47,424/- was deposited, and, therefore, no further pre-deposit was required.

None appeared on behalf of the appellant.

The AR submitted that the impugned order only confirmed penalty and interest and there is no order for demand of service tax. Inasmuch as, duty/tax is not under dispute but only penalty and interest and, therefore, appellant is required to make pre-deposit of 10% of penalty amount of Rs.97,44,755/-.

The Bench extracted the operative portion of the order passed by the adjudicating authority and which reads -

(i) I confirm demand of interest at the appropriate rates to be recovered from M/s VEL under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the service tax belatedly paid and or payable by them.

(ii) I impose penalty of Rs.97,44,755/- (Rupees Ninety seven lakh forty four thousand seven hundred fifty five only) on M/s VEL under the provisions of section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to pay service tax on time in accordance with the provisions of section 68 of the said Act read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

(iii) I confirm imposition of fine of late fee amounting to Rs.67,400/- (Rupees sixty seven thousand four hundred only) as applicable under section 70 of the Act read with rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, to be recovered from M/s VEL for not filing the ST-3 returns prescribed under rule 7 ibid within the due dates for filing such returns till the date of filing such returns.

The CESTAT, therefore, observed -

"…, it can be seen that there is no service tax amount which is under dispute. The dispute is regarding penalty, interest and late fee. Therefore, in terms of section 35F, the appellant is required to deposit 10% of duty if duty and penalty is under dispute and if only penalty is under dispute then 10% of such penalty should be deposited as a pre-deposit. We, therefore, of the view that appellant is required to make pre-deposit of 10% penalty imposed in the impugned order. In the interest of justice, we allow the appellant to make such pre-deposit within a period of 4 weeks and compliance of the same be reported on 11.08.2017…"

It is also emphasized that in case the appellant failed to make the pre-deposit by the appointed date, the appeal would stand dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-2808-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.