Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Laxmi Color Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 21 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2007]8STT259
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard both sides.
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal challenging the impugned order whereby the penalty under Section 76 and Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 was imposed for late filing of Service Tax Return and late deposit of Service Tax.
3. The contention of the appellant is that they are doing profession of developing and printing of photographs film. The Service Tax of photographs service was introduced w.e.f. 16.7.2001. The appellants applied for registration. The contention is that in spite of appellants' request for registration, the Revenue Authorities never conveyed to the appellants regarding registration. This fact even admitted in the passed by order the Commissioner (Appeals) who also set aside the penalties up to 22.4.2003. However, imposed the penalty after this date on the ground that Revenue Officers visited the appellants' premises and appellant were informed regarding their liability. The appellants relied upon the pro visions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 to submit that as they had applied for registration but the Revenue is not responded to their request. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any penalty. The contention is that this is a reasonable cause for the failure to file the Return and deposit Service Tax, Hence the imposition of penalty is not sustainable.
4. The contention of the Revenue is that though, appellants applied for registration but on 22.4.2003 when officers visited their premises specifically informed regarding their liability. Therefore, they are liable to penal action under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
5. We find that appellants are only challenging the imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Provisions of these Sections provide penalty failure to pay Service Tax and Return. Further, we find that Section 80 provides that notwithstanding anything under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act no penalty shall be imposed on the assessee for any failure preferred to in the said provisions, if assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. As the appellant applied for registration in July, 2001 immediately after introduction of photograph service and Revenue had not responded to that request, therefore, it cannot be said that appellants are at fault for not filling the Return and payment of Service Tax on deduction. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, we find merit in the contention of the appellants. The penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act is set aside. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.