Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Sikar Ex-Serviceman Welfare ... on 22 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(108)ECC382, 2006ECR382(TRI.-DELHI), 2006[4]S.T.R.213
ORDER M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 23.9.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondents against imposition of penalty.
2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents are a Cooperative Society, registered with the authorities for providing security services. They did not apply for their registration under the category of security services and on pursuance by the department opted for registration and produced the documents like balance sheet to the department. On scrutiny of such documents the department came to the conclusion that service tax to the tune of Rs. 4,23,857/- escaped the assessment. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of the said service tax and for imposition of penalty and also for recovery of the interest. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority, confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty and directed the respondents to pay the interest on the amount so confirmed. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) held that service tax and the interest leviable on such service tax confirmed is correct but set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents. Hence, this appeal by the department against the portion in which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty on the respondents.
3. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Heard learned D.R. and perused the records. It is contention of the learned D.R. that the penalty which has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong inasmuch as that the respondents have not taken the registration despite the fact that they were providing service of security agency. He submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) interpretation of the work concerned is wrong inasmuch as that the respondents are working for profit.
4. Considered the submissions made by learned D.R. and perused the records. I find that the respondents are registered as cooperative society and are providing Ex-service men for security purpose, to enable such ex-service men to earn for their livelihood. Though services provided by them get covered under the definition of security agency, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty on the fact that there could be question of interpretation in respect of word "Commercial Concern". The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty on the ground that there could be two ways of interpretation of the word "Commercial Concern" and in this case the respondents are registered as cooperative society for the welfare of the Ex-service men that could, possibly, interpreted that they are covered under the security agency, but they are not commercial concern. Penalty has been set aside only on the ground that there was a question of interpretation of law and it is settled law, that no penalty can be imposed where interpretation of law is in question.
5. In view of the above finding, I do not find any merit in the appeal of the department. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)