Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sharp Metal Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 June, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Service Tax Appeal No. 765 of 2012 SM
Date of Hearing/decision : 13.6.2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 158/ST / LKO/2012 dated 12.3.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Lucknow]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mathew John, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 : No
of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair : Seen
copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the : Yes
Departmental authorities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M/s. Sharp Metal Industries Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Lucknow
Appearance:
Shri Kapil Vaish, Chartered Accountant for the Appellants
Shri Sanjay Jain, AR for the Respondent
ORAL ORDER NO . ________________________
Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Kapil Vaish, learned Chartered Accountant and Shri Sanjay Jain learned AR, I find that originally show cause notice dated 28.4.08 proposed confirmation of Service Tax under the category of erection, commissioning. On appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) agreed that appellant, activity undertaken by them originally was covered under the said category, but held that appellant would be liable to pay Service Tax under the work contract category with introduction of levy of Service Tax on work contract on 1.6.2007.
2. Learned Chartered Accountant submits that they are ready to pay the Service Tax [which infact already stands paid by the appellant]. However, he submits that there was confusion in the industry and two authorities of the department itself has given two different conclusions. As such, there was reasonable cause on their behalf for not paying Service Tax in which case provisions of Section 80 would be invoked. He accordingly, prays for setting aside of penalty.
3. While confirming the demand of duty as not contested, I agree with the learned Chartered Accountant that as there was confusion in the field, non-payment of Service Tax was not on account of any malafide. As such, I set aside the penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act.
4. The appeal is disposed of in the above manner.
(Pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
3