Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Prompt Services vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Bolpur on 19 May, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.S.T./277/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.45/BOL/10 dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-IV) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL 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
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
M/s.Prompt Services
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri Pawan Kr. Agarwal, (C.A.) for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K.Sharma, Authorised Representative(JDR) for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing:- 19.05.2011 Date of Pronouncement :- 19.05.2011 ORDER NO.
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Shri Pawan Kr. Agarwal, C.A. appearing for the Appellants states that the Appellants have paid the Service Tax along with interest as well as the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He states that the Appeal is limited to a challenge on second penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. He argues that w.e.f. 2008, penalties is under Section 76 and Section 78 have been made mutually exclusive and therefore, the penalty under Section 76 should be set aside.
3. Heard the learned Departmental Representative Shri A.K.Sharma who states that during the impugned period it was permissible to impose penalties under both the Sections 76 and 78. He further states that the amendment made in the year 2008 is only prospective and has no application for the previous period.
4. After hearing both the sides, I find that the Tribunal has been taking a lenient view and has in the past confirmed penalty under one of these two Sections particularly keeping in view the legislative change made subsequently. I am of the view that penalty under one of the two Sections suffices and is adequately deterrent on the Appellants. In view of the fact that the Appellants have already paid the Service Tax amount along with interest and the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 and allow the Appeal.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) Sd/ (CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER sm 2 Appeal No.S.T./277/2010