Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Orissa Stevedors Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 21 March, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
1-11) SERVICE TAX APPEAL NOs.ST/A/28/11, 78-87/12
(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.46/ST/B-I/2011 DATED 28.10.2010 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, BHUBANESWAR)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE OF
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
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 :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities?
M/S. ORISSA STEVEDORS LIMITED
APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, BHUBANESWAR-I
...RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE:
NONE, FOR THE APPELLANT(S);
SHRI A.ROY,A.R.(SUPDT.) FOR THE REVENUE. CORAM:
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing & Decision:21.03.2014 ORDER NO.FO/A/75106-75116/2014 These Appeals appeared for hearing on 27/06/13, 16/08/13, 13/09/13, 01/11/13, 06/12/13, 21/03/13 i.e.today. However, neither any one was present for the Appellants, nor there is any request for adjournment. Heard the ld. AR for the Revenue.
2. These eleven Appeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.46/ST/B-I/2010 dated 28.10.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar, who by a common Order disposed eleven Orders-in-Original.
3. The AR for the Revenue submits that in the impugned Order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed. He also submits that admittedly, the Appellant had filed ST-3 returns after its stipulated time, even though taxable services rendered, and hence, penalty is rightly imposable on the Appellants.
4. I find that the Appellants had though rendered taxable services during the period relevant, but they failed to file the statutory ST-3 returns within the prescribed period. It is not plea of the Appellants that during the relevant period, no taxable service had been rendered and accordingly, they were required to file NIL ST-3 returns. In these circumstances, the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and confirmed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), seems to be legal and proper. Accordingly, there is no justification in interfering with the impugned Order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Appeals are being devoid of merit, accordingly, dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) Sd/-
(D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) DUTTA/ 2 ST/A/28/11, 78-87/12 2