Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Krishna Satellite Cable Network vs Cce, Jaipur I on 12 January, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Principal Bench, New Delhi
COURT NO. II
DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/12.
Service Tax Appeal No. 584 of 2008
M/s Krishna Satellite Cable Network Appellant
Versus
CCE, Jaipur I Respondent
Appearance
Shri V.R. Sethi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Gupta, Authorized Representative (SDR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member
Order No. ________________ Dated : _____________
ORDER
Per. D.N. Panda :-
Learned Counsel clearly states that his client is not interested to perpetuate the litigation. Tax due shall be payable subject to grant of Cenvat credit. The appellant has already furnished particulars of payment of service tax to the learned Commissioner (Appeals), but that authority did not consider the issue. Tribunal may consider such grievance and allow appropriate relief.
2. Learned Counsel further submits that at the early stage of implementation of law there was confusion about arise of liability. Considering such aspect, Tribunal was pleased to apply Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 to the case of the appellant in appeal No. ST/546/06 disposed by final order No. ST/214/08 dated 25/7/08. Similar benefit may be extended in the present case.
3. Learned representative for Revenue submits that Appellate Authority has passed appropriate order on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. We are able to notice from discussion and finding in the adjudication order that the appellant has raised grievance of claim of Cenvat credit of Rs. 44,266/-. When the appellant says that particulars were given to learned Commissioner (Appeals), he should have consider that issue. On this limited count, we remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the grievance of the appellant about admissibility of Cenvat credit of Rs. 44,266/- on verification of the particulars submitted by the appellant.
6. In so far as rest part of the tax demand is concerned, that is confirmed with without legal infirmity in first appellate order.
7. So far as penalty levied are concerned, we are unable to find any mens-rea in the present case and the averment made by the appellant about the confusion of the law and the applicability of Section 80 to the case of the appellant as has been appreciated by Tribunal in the case of the same appellant in the service tax appeal No. 546/2006 aforesaid, there shall be no levy of penalty. Interest as that is due shall be payable. In the result, appeal is partly allowed and remand is made to the limited extend, as indicated above. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member PK ??
??
??
??
3 ST/584 of 2008