Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Aakar Advertising And Aakar ... on 23 April, 2008

M/S. Tirupur Container Terminals Pvt. ... vs Cce & St, Coimbatore on 27 June, 2016

3. Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, appearing on behalf of the department submitted that it has been established that they have contravened the provisions of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, in as much as they have failed to pay the service tax for availing the services of GTA for the period Dec. 2005 to Oct. 2006. Hence, the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demand along with interest after appropriating the service tax paid by them. Since, the appellants were not able show a reasonable cause for the failure to pay the service tax on the impugned service the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly denied the relief. He relied on the judgement of the Honble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of UOI & Anr Vs. AAKAR Advertising reported in 2008-TIOL-303-HC-RAJ-ST, wherein on similar circumstances the Honble High Court held in favour of the Revenue, after setting aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the quantum of the penalty amount under Section 76. Hence, he prayed that the appeal may be remanded back to the adjudicating authority.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Nahida Nasreen vs Hyderabad - G S T on 16 April, 2025

9. Department is also placing reliance in the case of Union of India Vs Aakar Advertising [2008 (11) STR 5 (Raj)] in which Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan - Jodhpur decided that Tribunal could not entertain appeal on merit when impugned order dismissing appeal for non-payment of pre- deposit not paid dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) sustainable and Tribunal not empowered to entertain appeal on merit.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1