Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 3]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S.Rrd Tex vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 1 July, 2010

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI



Appeal No.ST/413/2009

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.70/2009-ST9SLM)     dated 22.04.2009  passed by the Commissioner of  Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]


For approval and signature:

Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President


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 authoritative report or not?				      	      
3.	Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of        :
	the Order?								      
4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental   :
	Authorities?							      

M/s.RRD Tex
Appellants


       Versus


Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax), Salem
Respondent

Appearance :

Shri M. Karthikeyan, Cons. Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 01.07.2010 Date of decision : 01.07.2010 Final Order No.____________ Penalties imposed upon the assessees under the provisions of Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are challenged in this appeal.

2. I have heard both sides. I accept the contention of the assessees that they were under a bonafide belief that the commission paid by them to foreign agents being related to exports, would not attract service tax. Their further contention that they were ignorant of their liability to tax is not rebutted as the Revenue has not established suppression on their part. I, therefore, extend the protection under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 as the assessees had a reasonable cause for the failure to pay tax within time, by setting aside the penalties under Section 76 and 78 ibid. However, penalty under Section 77 is upheld. The appeal is thus partly allowed as above.

(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 29-06-2010) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 01-07-2010 ??

??

??

??

1 2