Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Yes vs Represented By : Shri A. Doshi, ... on 1 October, 2010
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : ST/90, 91 and 95 of 2010 (Application Nos. ST/S/287, 288 & 291 of 2010) Arising out of : OIA Nos. 554 (486-Raj)2009/Commr(A)/Raj dt. 20.11.09, No. 555 (487-Raj)2009/Commr(A)/Raj dtd. 20.11.09 and No. 556 (488-Raj)2009/Commr(A)/Raj dt. 20.11.09 Passed by : Commr. (Appeals) C. Excise & Cus. Rajkot For approval and signature : Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Appellant (s) : M/s. Jay Shipping M/s. Superfast Road Lines M/s. Rajshree Forwarders Represented by : Shri A. Doshi, Chartered Accountant Respondent (s) : Commissioner of Central Excise Rajkot
Represented by : Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR CORAM :
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 01.10.2010 Date of Decision : 01.10.2010 ORDER No. _____________ /WZB/AHD/2010 Per Mr. B.S.V. Murthy;
Since the matter involved in all the three appeals is short, and therefore after allowing the stay petitions, the appeals themselves are taken up for disposal.
2. In all the three cases the appellant had delayed the payment of service tax. The first appellant M/s. Jay Shipping had made delayed payment on three quarters, the second appellant M/s. Superfast Road Lines made delayed payment in respect of four quarters and third appellant M/s. Rajshree Forwarders delayed the payment for two quarters. In all the cases, the service tax was paid with interest and return was also filed in time. In all the cases, subsequently show cause notices were issued proposing to impose penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994, which culminated in confirmation of penalties under Section 76.
2. Learned Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellants submits that the issue is no more res-integra and covered by several decisions of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. UB Engineeringvs. CCE Rajkot 2009-TIOL-1192-CESTAT-AHM, M/s. Amrish Enterprises vs. CCE Rajkot order No. A/1018/WZB/AH'BAD/2010, M/s. Shanthi Casting Works vs. CCE Coimbatore 2009-TIOL-161-CESTAT-MADRAS and M/s. Electro World vs. CCE Chandigarh 2010-TIOL-520-CESTAT-DELHI.
3. The learned DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the appellants have repeatedly failed to pay service tax in time and submits that in such cases a lenient view is not called for. Further, he also drew my attention that there was also delay in filing the returns by one of the appellant earlier also.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. According to provisions of sub-Section 3 of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, where there is short levy of service tax, if the person chargeable with tax, pays the amount on the basis of own assessment, before service of notice, with interest, Central Excise officers shall not service any notice on him. Further, I also find that the CBEC vide its circular No. F.No. 1371/167/2006-CX dated 03.10.2007, has also clarified that in respect of persons who voluntarily deposited the tax, no proceedings are required to be initiated. In this case, there is no dispute that the appellants had discharged service tax liability with interest before issue of show cause notice. I also find that decisions cited by the learned Chartered Accountant are also relevant. In view of the provisions of Section 73 (3) of Finance Act, 1994, and precedent Tribunal decisions, appeals are allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (B.S.V. Murthy) Member (Technical) ..KL ??
??
??
??
3