Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Service Tax

Imposition of penalty u/s 78 without intention to evade payment of tax untenable

Case Law Details

Case Name
Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act without elements of fraud or collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or violation of Act or Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of tax is untenable in law. Facts- The appellant is registered with the Central Excise and holds the service tax registration for providing services of consulting engineers, business auxiliary, manpower recruitment or supply, goods transport agency, etc. Its records were a...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *