Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bnp Paribas Equities India P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai on 29 February, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
ST/S/1174/11 in Appeal No. ST/407/11
(Arising out Order-in-Original No. 49/STC-I/BR/10-11 dated 22.3.2011 passed by the Commissioner of service tax, Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
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 Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
BNP Paribas Equities India P. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of service tax, Mumbai
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for the appellant Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Suptd. (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 29.02.2012 Date of decision : 29.02.2012 O R D E R No:..
Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The service tax demand ahs been confirmed against the appellant under Management consultant service who they have provided in April 2002 to September 2002 by way of agreement of service to government of India. At the time of execution of the agreement, appellant did not pay service tax but on issuance of the show-cause notice the applicant admitted the service tax liability and paid the service tax along with interest and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 @ Rs.100/- per day for the defaulting period. The show-cause notice was issued. During and after adjudicating, they paid the service tax liability along with interest and penalty imposed by the under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1944 at applicable rates during the relevant time i.e. @ Rs.100 per day during the period of default.
2. The order of the adjudicating authority was reviewed by the Commissioner and in review proceedings, penalty under Section 76 has been revised and confirmed @ Rs.200/- per day for the default period or 2% of the service tax per month whichever is higher against the appellants. Therefore, this appeal is before us.
3. After hearing both sides in detail, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage, therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and have taken up the appeal for final disposal.
4. The issue involved is of narrow compass i.e. Penalty be imposed on the appellant under Section 76 of the Finance Act. It is well settled law that punishment is to be given on the basis of the provisions of law prevailing at the time of occurance of the offence. It is admitted position that during the period April 2002 to September 2002, penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act is leviable @ Rs.100 per day which may exceed to Rs.200/- during that period. The adjudicating authority has exercised his option and imposed the penalty @ Rs.100 per day. In view of these observations, we hold that the Commissioner cannot go beyond the provisions applicable at the time of occurance of offence. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the impugned order, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) SR 3