Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S.R.S.Vora on 27 June, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No.II APPEAL No.ST/155/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CEX/AKD/113/NSK/APL/2006 dated 17/07/2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nasik) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) ====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : authorities?
====================================================
The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Nasik Appellants
Vs.
M/s.R.S.Vora Respondents
Appearance:
Shri.C.Lama, JDR for Appellants
Shri.Jayesh P Doshi, Advocate for Respondents
CORAM:
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing : 27/06/2008
Date of decision : 27/06/2008
O R D E R No:..
Per: Shri M.V.Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal No.CEX/AKD/113/NSK/APL dated 17/07/2007.
2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.
3. The revenue is in appeal against the order-in-appeal on the ground that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original imposing the penalties on the respondents on the ground that the appellants has discharged the entire service tax liability before 30/10/2004, but the fact remain that the respondents had paid Rs.2651/- and the interest thereon in 2005.
4. It is the submission by the Ld. SDR that order-in-appeal needs to be set aside. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the order-in-original to the extent it relates to imposition of penalty held as under:-
In the instant case, the appellant took registration and paid the service tax along with interest prior to the introduction of Extra ordinary Taxpayer Friendly Scheme which was operative upto 30/10/2004. It has been held in the case of CCE, Bhopal Vs Bharat Security Service & Workers Cont. (2005 (188) ELT 454 (Tri-Delhi) that a service tax provider who registered himself and paid service tax along with interest prior to 30/10/2004 is not liable to any penalty under the said scheme. Honble Tribunal, Mumbai applied the same ratio in many similar cases, one of them being in the case of SS Shah Vs CCE, Nasik vide Order No.A/1536/C-IV/SMB/WZB/2006 dated 04/09/2006. As a lower appellate authority, I am bound tofollow the same in terms of the principle laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., (1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC). Accordingly, the immunity provided therein should also be extended to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the OIO No.43/ST/2007 dated 25/04/2007 passed by DCCE, Jalgaon Division, so far as it relates to imposition of penalty under various Sections of Finance Act, 1994, is set aside.
5. It is seen that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the law as has been laid down by the various decision of the Tribunal. On factual matrix also it is noticed that the respondents had paid almost 99% of the amount of Rs.4,03,923/- and interest before October 2004. A small amount of Rs.2,651/- was paid by them subsequently, when the amnesty scheme of extra ordinary tax payer friendly scheme was not in operation.
6. I do not find any reason for interference in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for such miniscule amount. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing finding the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (M. V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) pj 1 3 2