Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Ashok Rastogi vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 1 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(104)ELT480(TRI-DEL), 2006[2]S.T.R.236
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the applicants. However, in response to the notice of hearing, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Further, it was submitted that in the similar circumstances in the case of Sajjan Kumar Kariwal (Appeal No. E/1610/96-NB) vide Final Order No. E/312/97-NB, dated 14-2-1997 [1997 (20) RLT 885 (CEGAT)] the Tribunal not only waived the pre-deposit the penalty but appeal itself was allowed, copy of the same was enclosed.
2. On going through the records and after hearing the learned DR, we felt that the matter itself can be disposed of. The amount required to be deposited for the purpose of hearing the appeal is dispensed with and the main appeal itself was taken up for the purpose of hearing.
3. In the instant case, appellant Ashok Kumar is a broker of Uttar Pradesh Stock Exchange, Kanpur and was required to file quarterly return ST-3 in terms of Section 70(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the quarter ending September, 1994 and December, 1994 but he failed to submit in time. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued proposing penalty and after hearing the appellants, penalty of Rs. 6,000/- was imposed on the appellants.
4. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that since service tax was introduced for the first time, he did not know that he was required to submit quarterly return even when he was not doing any trading at the stock exchange. After knowing that he was required to file return, the same was submitted showing NIL return. It was submitted that since it was first delay on introduction of Finance Act, 1994 and there was no liability to pay any duty, delay in procedural lapse may be condoned.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that appellant has not carried out any business during the period in question and even if he has filed return in time, the same would have been shown as NIL return. In the similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has already waived the amount and allowed the appeal. Following the ratio of that decision, we accept the contentions of the appellant and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Both the stay application and appeal are disposed of accordingly.