Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Shri Kamlesh Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Mamta ... on 14 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(104)ECC589, 2006(107)ECC589, 2006ECR589(TRI.-DELHI), 2006[4]S.T.R.205
ORDER M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-appeal dated 27.10.2004 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original which imposes service tax and penalty on the respondents.
2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are that the respondents is registered as service tax payer under the category of Rent A Cab service and were discharging the tax liability. The department found out that during the year 2001-02 the respondent being operator issued a bill on his personal name for Rs. 2423/- as service provided for renting a Cab. It is on this amount that service tax liability was worked out as not being paid and the same was demanded. The respondent paid the service tax liability along with interest. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty on the respondent. On an appeal the appellate authority quashed the penalty and also set aside the demand of service tax which was confirmed. Hence, this appeal.
3. The respondent is absent despite notice. Considered the submissions made by the learned D.R. The department's appeal is directed solely on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent in spite of the fact that the respondent has agreed for the submission of service tax liability and have paid all the service tax. This itself attract penal provisions under the Finance Act, 1994. I find that the respondent has admitted and accepted the tax liability and has paid the tax liability along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his findings at Para 5 has held as under:
As regards the imposition of various penalties under the different Sections quoted above for violation of the relevant provisions, I find that there are 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 assessees 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 dtd. 23.09.04 to be operational upto 30.10.04 in respect of the assessees 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 & 77 etc. When the assessees who did not at all comply with the S.T. 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 more or less in time and had also started paying the Service tax along with interest, 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. all of which are procedural in nature. In view of my aforesaid findings, I am inclined to waive the penalties imposed on the said party.
I find that the justification given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside the Order-in-Original is in conformity with the settled law and also Board's Circular dated 23.9.2004.
4. In view of the above I do not find any merit in the appeal of the department. The same is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)