Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Ramnet Com vs The Commissioner on 27 October, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench Single Member Bench Court I Appeal No. ST/440/2007 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.17/2007)ST, dated 12-09-2007 passed by Commissioner(Appeals), C.CE&ST, Guntur) For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., 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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s Ramnet Com. ..Appellant(s) Vs. The Commissioner C.CE&ST,Tirupati ..Respondent(s)
Appearance None for the Appellant( on merit).
Shri S.Chandra Bose, AR for the Respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 27/10/2016 Date of Decision: 27/10/2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.]
1. The above appeal is filed challenging the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the demand and interest, confirmed by the original authority.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were providing service under category of cable operator, multi-system operator and advertising agency services. They failed to pay service tax on the above services and a show cause notice was issued covering different periods for various services. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.1,63,330/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty besides imposing penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 and also penalty of Rs.32,660/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 1994. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, dropped the penalty imposed under Section 76, and reduced the penalty of Rs. 3,26,660/- imposed under Section 78 to Rs.1,63,330/- Being aggrieved the appellants are now before the Tribunal.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant and the Ld. Counsel for the appellant in his written submission has requested to decide the appeal on merits after perusal of records. On behalf of the department, the Ld. AR S.Chandra Bose submitted that the appellant has failed to take registration and also discharge the service tax liability. That therefore, the confirmation of demand, interest and penalties imposed are legal and proper.
3. On going through the records, before me, I find that the only defence put forward by the appellant for not paying the service tax is that they were ignorant of law. The said services were covered under tax net w.e.f.16-08-2002 and the appellants obtained registration only after interference from the department. Thus, I do not find any valid ground to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals). It has also to be mentioned that the Commissioner(Appeals) has dropped the penalty imposed under Sec. 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the basis that the said penalty was proposed by issuing a corrigendum to the show cause notice. Be that as it may, these penalties imposed under 76 and 78 are not simultaneously sustainable and therefore has rightly set aside one of them. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also taken a lenient view and reduced the penalty under Section 78. In view thereof I do not find any ground to interfere and the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in open court) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) dks.
4