Friends, by TIOL News Service, on 30th July, 2011 reported at Bangalore that When assessee paid service tax with interest before issue of SCN., matter covered by Sec. 73(3) - Penalties waived in terms of Sec. 80 - Revenue apeal withdrawn for non-approval from COD, the lower authority held that the assessee, a PSU Bank was liable to pay service tax on SWIFT charges for the period from 10.09.2004 to 30.04.2008 and confirmed the demand with interest and penalties. On appeal, the Appellate Commissioner upheld the demand for the period from 18.04.2006 to 30.04.2008 while setting aside demand of service tax for prior period.
Revenue filed an appeal before CESTAT against the portion of order which went against it and sought COD approval for the same. Based on this information from CESTAT registry, assessee filed cross objections in terms of s. 86(4) of Finance Act, 1994. At the same time assessee also filed a separate appeal against the portion of Appellate Commissioner's order which was against them.
In the interim, Revenue did not get COD approval to pursue its appeal resulting in a miscellaneous application before CESTAT to withdraw its appeal. However, assessee received COD's nod to pursue its cross objections to the said appeal. While CESTAT allowed Revenue to withdraw its appeal and allowed the miscellaneous application for the same, the cross objections filed by the assessee was treated as an appeal in itself and heard by the CESTAT.
Arguing in favour of the cross objections, the authorized representative of the assessee contended that the withdrawal of appeal by Revenue would not in any way hamper its cross objections. It was contended that they received COD approval to prosecute their cross objections before the Tribunal apart from receiving approval for prosecuting their separate appeal as well. In the cross objections, the assessee contended that they had discharged the entire service tax liability with interest even before the issue of show cause notice and hence the matter is covered by the provisions of s. 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 which mandates Revenue not to issue SCN.
After considering the averments in the cross objections, CESTAT observed that the case is fit for invoking s. 80 of Finance Act, 1994. The cross objections filed by assessee was considered as an appeal and the impugned order to the extent it upheld the penalties imposed on the assessee was set aside by invoking provisions of s. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. In view of this, assessee's prayer to withdraw its separate appeal was also considered by CESTAT and the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
Revenue filed an appeal before CESTAT against the portion of order which went against it and sought COD approval for the same. Based on this information from CESTAT registry, assessee filed cross objections in terms of s. 86(4) of Finance Act, 1994. At the same time assessee also filed a separate appeal against the portion of Appellate Commissioner's order which was against them.
In the interim, Revenue did not get COD approval to pursue its appeal resulting in a miscellaneous application before CESTAT to withdraw its appeal. However, assessee received COD's nod to pursue its cross objections to the said appeal. While CESTAT allowed Revenue to withdraw its appeal and allowed the miscellaneous application for the same, the cross objections filed by the assessee was treated as an appeal in itself and heard by the CESTAT.
Arguing in favour of the cross objections, the authorized representative of the assessee contended that the withdrawal of appeal by Revenue would not in any way hamper its cross objections. It was contended that they received COD approval to prosecute their cross objections before the Tribunal apart from receiving approval for prosecuting their separate appeal as well. In the cross objections, the assessee contended that they had discharged the entire service tax liability with interest even before the issue of show cause notice and hence the matter is covered by the provisions of s. 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 which mandates Revenue not to issue SCN.
After considering the averments in the cross objections, CESTAT observed that the case is fit for invoking s. 80 of Finance Act, 1994. The cross objections filed by assessee was considered as an appeal and the impugned order to the extent it upheld the penalties imposed on the assessee was set aside by invoking provisions of s. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. In view of this, assessee's prayer to withdraw its separate appeal was also considered by CESTAT and the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
0 comments:
Post a Comment