Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S Security & Intelligence Services ... on 13 November, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD COURT No. I APPEAL No. ST/1612/2011-ST[SM] (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 194-ST/APPL/KNP/2011 dated 24/08/2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur) Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur Appellant Vs. M/s Security & Intelligence Services (India) Limited Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Mohd. Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Appellant
Absent, for Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing & Date of Decision : 13/11/2017
FINAL ORDER NO. 71368/2017
Per: Archana Wadhwa
The short issue in the present appeal of the Revenue relates to penalty imposed upon the respondent by the Original Adjudicating Authority and set aside by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. I have heard ld. A. R., Shri Mohd. Altaf, appearing for the Revenue and none appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3. The brief facts of record are that the respondent/assessee was engaged in providing Security Services and were duly registered with the Service Tax Department. As a result of certain investigations made at the registered premises of the respondent/assessee, it was found that though the respondent had received the consideration for the services provided along with Service Tax but in some cases, they had not deposited Service Tax. The statement of their accountant was recorded, wherein he said that during the period in question, the returns could not be filed on account of shortage of employees but as they have provided service, which were duly reflected in their records, there was no escape from payment of Service Tax. The same was subsequently deposited.
3. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated for imposition of penalties resulting in passing of an order by the Original Adjudicating Authority. The penalties imposed upon them stands set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) by observing that the entire facts were reflected by the appellant in their Accounts & Balance Sheets, which is a public document and it cannot be said that there was any mala-fide intention on their part so as to evade payment of tax. Accordingly, he set aside the penalties.
4. Having gone through the Revenues appeal and the impugned order and after appreciating the submissions made by the ld. A. R. appearing for the Revenue, I find that there is no rebuttal to the above factual aspect observed by the respondent. If the entire facts were being reflected by the respondent in their Books of Account, maintained in the Ordinary Course of Business, the said fact leads to the inevitable conclusion that there was no mis-statement or suppression the part of the respondent/assessee, with any mala-fide intention thus, justifying setting aside of penalties.
5. In view of the above, I find that there is no valid reason to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, Revenues appeal is rejected.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court) Sd/-
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Ansari 1 3 ST Appeal No. 1612/11