Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Chitrita Virnave vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002ECR1064(TRI.KOLKATA), 2002(145)ELT622(TRI-KOLKATA), 2006[3]S.T.R.56, [2007]9STT545
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Inasmuch as the issue involved in all the four appeals is identical, I take up the Stay Petitions as well as the appeals together.
2. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, I have heard Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. JDR for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned orders passed by the authorities below.
3. The challenge in the appeal is only of the imposition of personal penalties of varied amounts imposed upon the appellants who are Architects by profession. As per facts on record, I find that the Service Tax was imposed on rendered Architects with effect from 16th October, 1998. Thereafter, the appellants got" themselves registered with the Central Excise authorities. However, the Service Tax was not deposited by them for certain quarters and ST-3 returns was not filed for the said period. The appellants' defence is that the provisions of Service Tax in respect of Architects were stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on the Writ Petition filed by "The Indian Institute of Architects" on behalf of its Members. As such, the Service Tax was not being paid by them. However, as soon as, the appellants came to know about the vacation of Stay Order by the Hon'ble High Court, they deposited the tax along with interest leviable thereon immediately thereafter. In the circumstances, their contention is that there was no mala fide on part of the appellants and imposition of personal penalties upon them is neither justified nor warranted.
4. On the other hand, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted the grant of interim stay by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras but has observed that the appellants were out of jurisdiction of that High Court and hence the stay order was not applicable to them. As such, he has concluded that the appellants have knowingly delayed the deposit of Service Tax and filed returns justifying imposition of penalties upon them.
5. After giving my careful consideration to the issue involved, I find that admittedly the Hon'ble High Court of Madras had granted the interim stay to the operation of the provisions of Service Tax in respect of Architects. In these views of the matter, the action on the part of the appellants in not depositing the Service Tax cannot be called mala fide so as to justify the imposition of penalties upon them. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of the penalties upon the appellants and allow the appeals. Stay Petitions also get disposed of.