Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ncpt vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 12 November, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 21995 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/21115/2014 in ST/20999/2014-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/20999/2014-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. TVM-EXCUS-000-APP-096-13-14 dated 24/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, (Appeal), COCHIN.] M/s. NCPT Pandalam, Pathanamthitta. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Trivandrum T.C.NO.26/334(1&2), I.C.E BHAVAN,PRESS CLUB ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695001 KERALA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. V.V Sekhar FCA, JRS & Co., 2nd Floor, The Monarch P.T. Usha Road KOCHIN - 682011 KERALA For the Appellant Mr. R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 12/11/2014 Date of Decision: 12/11/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The appellant is a proprietary concern of Mr. Narayanan Sasikumar engaged in conducting classes for diploma classes in Fire and Safety Engineering at Pandalam, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. On the ground that appellant was providing franchisee service and was not paying service tax, proceedings were initiated. However, before issue of show-cause notice, the appellant paid the entire amount of service tax due with interest and payments were made on different dates from 5.11.2009 to 24.2.2010 whereas the show-cause notice was issued on 15.6.2010. The learned CA on behalf of the appellants submitted that in this case, proceedings should not have been initiated at all in view of the provisions of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994. He also relied upon several decisions to submit that penalty could not have been imposed on the appellant.
2. Having regard to the fact that appellant is a proprietary concern, he is functioning in a small town Pandalam, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala and as soon as the liability was brought to his notice, he paid the tax with interest even before issue of show-cause notice and took registration, we consider that this is a fit case for waiver of penalty by invoking provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. As regards the service tax, the liability has been accepted and interest has also been paid. Since only penalty is involved and we have already taken a view that this is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994, we allow the appeal itself at this stage.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2