Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Nav Bharat Tubes Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T., Jaipur-I on 3 November, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT IV
Service Tax Appeal No.ST/50482/2015 EX. [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.69(SLM)ST/JPR-I/2014 dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur].
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Nav Bharat Tubes Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T., Jaipur-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Ms. Asmita Nayak, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Bhatnagar, D.R. Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 03.11.2015 FINAL ORDER NO. _54284/2015___ PER: S.K. MOHANTY
In the present case, Rs.36,514/- has been confirmed against the appellant as serviced tax liability alongwith interest with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 and a further penalty of Rs.5000/- under section 77 has also been imposed on the appellant. The submissions of the appellant are that service tax liability on renting of immovable property was a disputed issue and pursuant to the judgment of Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Home Solution Retail India Ltd. there was no requirement for payment of any service tax. Subsequently when the appellant came to know that service tax is leviable on such taxable service, they deposited the appropriate service tax, attributable to the value of taxable service, alongwith interest and pleaded for waiver of the penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Heard both sides.
3. I find there is merits in the submissions of the appellant, as the leviability of tax on renting of immovable service was under dispute. Therefore, non-payment of service tax by the appellant was not due to any malafide intention. As such the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act can be extended to the appellant for waiver of penalty imposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act,1994. In view of above, the penalty confirmed in the impugned order under the above statutory provisions are set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 0 2