Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Section 78 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 1999
Section 73 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. on 1 September, 2004
4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authority and asserts that
the demands were correctly confirmed and penalties were correctly imposed.
He also argues that merely because the assessee is entitled to CENVAT
Credit, it does not mean that extended period of limitation cannot be
invoked, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited
[2005(179) ELT 21 (S.C.)].
Indian National Shipowners Assn. vs Union Of India . on 27 January, 2016
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that it is now well settled that
the demand of service tax on the services received from abroad under
reverse charge mechanism cannot be upheld for the period prior to
18.04.2006 when Section 66A was inserted in the Finance Act, 1994. This
issue has been settled in the case of Indian National Shipowners' Association
vs. Union of India [2009(14)S.T.R. 289 (Bom.)]. Hence the demand for the
period upto 18.04.2006 needs to be set aside. His second round of
argument is that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked even
for the period post 18.04.2006 because there is no evidence of intention to
evade payment of service tax. In fact, if they had paid the service tax, they
were entitled to avail CENVAT Credit of the same amount. Therefore, as far
as they are concerned, the entire exercise is revenue neutral and hence
(3) Appeal No. ST/3167/2011
extended period of limitation alleging fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement
cannot be invoked. For the same reason, no penalty should be imposed
under section 78 because the elements necessary for imposing the penalty
are absent.
1