Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Maharastra Samaj Bhawan Trust on 5 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2007]9STJ198(CESTAT-NEW DELHI), 2007[7]S.T.R.651, [2007]9STT191
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice President
1. Heard ld. SDR. The respondent filed written submissions.
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order confirmed the demand and interest, however, set aside the penalties on the following ground:
As regard the remaining issue framed above, I find that there are a catena of decisions of various appellate for a to the effect that in the initial stages of introduction of this public oriented wide spread new levy, many of new assesses being ignorant such procedural delays in taking up of registration and consequent filing of the returns etc. a lenient view can be taken. This was precisely the reason as to why many new Voluntary Disclosure Schemes for voluntary compliance like Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme declared under Board's F. No. 137/39/2004-CX. 4 dated 23.9.04 to be operational upto 30.10.04 in respect of the assesses who had not at all complied with the provisions of Service Tax Law had been launched waiving the various penalties under the aforesaid Sections 75A, 76 etc. When the assesses who did not at all comply with the Service Tax Law can be given immunity provided they pay the Service Tax along with appropriate rate of interest, there is no tangible and logical reason as to why the law abiding assessee who had got himself registered and fully cooperated with the department, much before the new scheme became operational, should be denied the benefit of waiver of the penal provisions referred to above for late registration, delay in filing of relevant returns etc. ail of which are procedural in nature.
In view of the aforesaid findings, I am inclined to waive the various penalties imposed under Sections 76, 75A & 79 on the said party. However, the party is liable to pay the Service Tax confirmed along with interest till the date of its payment.
3. The contention of the Revenue is that as the appellant had not paid the Service Tax, therefore, are liable for penal action. The respondent filed written submissions and placed on record copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Bhojpur Club Final Order No. 321/06 dated 14.2.06 where the Tribunal in a similar situation dismissed the appeal.
4. I have gone through the impugned order and the decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the respondent. I find that after taking into consideration Voluntary Disclosure Scheme dated 23.9.04 held that when the assesses who did not at all complied with the provisions of Service Tax Law paid the tax along with interest are not liable for paid by and there is no tangible and logical reason as to why the law abiding assessee who had got himself registered and also started paying Service Tax along with interest should be denied the benefit of waiver of penalties. In view of the above decision, I find no Infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)