75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

March 2016

2016 (41) STR 123 (Tri-Chennai) SRF Ltd vs. CCEx., Trichy

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Penalty u/s. 77 cannot be imposed on the ground of non-endorsement of new service in registration certificate.

Facts
The Appellant was registered under category of GTA as a receiver of service for payment of service tax and was paying tax under that category. Subsequently, it has received BAS services from abroad and accordingly discharged service tax under BAS. However penalty u/s. 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was imposed for not amending its registration certificate which is challenged before the Tribunal.

Held
The Appellant was a registered assessee and there was no default in payment of tax under the new category though endorsement was not done at that point of time. Since there was no deliberate default to evade the tax, penalty was waived.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2016] 65 taxmann.com 282 (Mumbai-CESTAT) Lupin Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Mumbai

2016 (41) STR 191 (Tri.-Ahmd.) Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Surat –II.