Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 20 February, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/954/2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 101/2009-Commr. LTU dated 29/09/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore.] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, 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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes ADECCO FLEXIONE WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS LTD. REGENT COURT, I & II FLOOR,PLOT NO.17, S.T.BED, 80FT. ROAD, KORMANGALA Bangalore 560 017. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-LTU 100 FT RING ROAD JSS TOWERS, BANASHANKARI-III STAGE, BANGALORE 560 085. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. B. Venugopal, Advocate SWAMY ASSOCIATES G-8, FORTUNA ICON APARTMENTS, JODIDHAR ASWATHAPPA FARM, BEHIND NAGARJUNA, SAHAKAR NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560092 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Mr. Pakshi Raja, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 20/02/2015 Date of Decision: 20/02/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20440 / 2015 Per : B.S.V.MURTHY There were delay in payment of service tax by the appellant in some months during the period from November 2008 to February 2009 and penalty under Section 76 amounting to Rs.8,05,722/- has been imposed.
2. The appellant had claimed the benefit of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 before the learned Commissioner for waiver of penalty and this has been rejected on the ground that the reasons are not satisfactory. Learned counsel submitted that appellant is engaged in manpower supply service and sometimes service receivers make delay in payments and in such cases, the appellant has to make the payments to the employees and as a result, some times the delay happens. Appellant having been regularly paying the tax and whenever such delay occurs they had paid the interest also and filed the returns also. In fact, I find that Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 would have been more appropriate which provides that unless there is suppression of facts or fraud, collusion, etc., show-cause notice shall not be served if tax and interest are paid. However, such a claim has not been made before the Commissioner. However, a claim has been made before me.
3. In my opinion, whether it is Section 80 or Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, the appellant has a case. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
(Order pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 3