Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Chennai Telephones (Bsnl) vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 15 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(174)ELT246(TRI-CHENNAI), 2006[3]S.T.R.159, [2007]8STT397
ORDER Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 9/2002 (M-I), dated 28-2-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai by which he has upheld the order of the lower adjudicating authority and confirming the interest amount of Rs. 48,25,578/- M/s. Chennai Telephones under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the belated remittance of service tax for some of the months during the period from August, 1994 to September, 1998.
2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants ld. Counsel Shri S. Ignatitus submits that during the relevant period, Chennai Telephones was the Central Government department and was depositing the tax on day to day basis. He submits that no interest can be levied on them during that period. In this connection he relied on the decision rendered by the Tribunal in their own case G.M. Telecom BSNL v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2003 (160) E.L.T. 318 (Tribunal) = 2003 (57) RLT 748 (CEGAT-Del.). He further submitted that the Department of Telecom Services (DTS) has been corporatised into Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) with effect from 1-11-2000 as could be seen from CBEC Service Tax Circular No. 33-1-2001, dated 29-1-2001. Since the period pertains to August, 1994 to August, 1998 i.e. to say prior to 1-11-2000 and since it was a Central Government department, no interest can be charged from them for the alleged belated payments. He further submits that the impugned order may be set aside.
3. Appearing for the Revenue ld. DR Shri C. Mani reiterates the stand taken by the department vide their letter dated C/IV/TELE/2/68/0002-JC, dated 8-9-2003, and he submits that from the date of passing of the journal slip, in effecting such transfer, which has to be considered that the service tax has been paid journal slips have been issued from 5-10-1994 to 14-10-1998. Thus there is a delay of various period in remitting this amount to the Central Government.
4. In counter, ld. Counsel submits that the date of issue of journal slip from 5-10-94 to 14-10-98 when it was Department of Telecommunication under the Ministry of Telecommunication was a Central Government department inasmuch as this department of telecommunication was converted into corporatised Company only with effect from 1-11-2000, when the department of telecommunication service was converted into a limited company under the name and style of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL). Therefore, no interest can be levied on them for such belated payments.
5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and find that during the period i.e. from 5-10-1994 to 14-10-1998 when the journal slips were issued it was a Department of Telecommunication Services which was a Central Government Department and in view of the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of G.M. Telecom BSNL v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2003 (160) E.L.T. 318 (Tribunal) = 2003 (57) RLT 748 (CEGAT-Del.) no interest is chargeable on the telephone services for delay in crediting the service tax in Government A/c. 00044 during the period prior to March, 1999 and no interest is required to be paid by the appellants as they were at the material time Central Government Department and the service tax have been deposited on day to day basis and was deposited into the Consolidated Fund of India. In view of the above facts and circumstances, by applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of G.M. Telecom BSNL v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra), we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Ordered accordingly.