Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Silver Ispat Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik on 20 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. ST/654/10-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/254/NSK/2010 dated 14.9.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Silver Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Respondent Appearance: None for appellant Shri Rakesh Goyal, Additional Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing: 20.5.2014 Date of Decision: 20.5.2014 ORDER NO
The appellant vide communication receiving through fax dated 19.5.2014 made a request to decide the appeal on merits.
2. Heard the learned AR.
3. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots and availing credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods. For carrying out their business activity of manufacture, the appellants were receiving the service of goods transport agency (GTA). During the audit, it has come to the notice of the Revenue that the appellant had not paid service tax on GTA service i.e. inward freight and outward freight during the period April 2006 to October 2007 as required under Section 66 of the Finance Act. The appellant also not filed any statutory returns as required under Section 70 of the Finance Act. The appellant had paid service tax along with interest. Show cause notice was issued for appropriation of the amount already paid towards service tax with interest. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal.
5. The only contention of the appellant in the appeal is in respect of imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. The contention is that due to financial constraints, the appellant failed to pay service tax on due dates.
6. I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots. The appellant during the period in dispute had not paid due service tax which is not disputed by the appellant in the present proceedings. It is not the case that the appellants were not aware of the fact that the appellants are liable to pay service tax on GTA service, rather the contention is that due to financial constraints, the tax has not been paid. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 3