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 2, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S.Ar.As.Pv.Pv. Motors Erode (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem on 9 April, 2010

        

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


Appeal No.ST/103/2009

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.19/2009-(SLM)(ST) dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner of  Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]


For approval and signature:

Honble Ms. 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.AR.AS.PV.PV. Motors Erode (P) Ltd. 
Appellants


       Versus


Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Respondent

Appearance:

Shri M.N. Bharathi, Adv. Shri C. Rangaraju, Adv. For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 09.04.2010 Date of decision : 09.04.2010 Final Order No.____________ The plea of the appellants in this appeal is that penalty under Section 76 may be set aside and that the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 may be reduced in the light of the Tribunals order in M/s.Safe Test Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2010  TIOL  355  CESTAT  MAD] as the entire service tax amount had been paid prior to the issue of the adjudication order.

2. Heard both sides. Since the provisions of Section 76 and 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 are mutually exclusive, and since the assessees have paid the penalty imposed under Section 78, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. As regards penalty under Section 78, I accept the contention of the assessees that they are liable to pay only 25% of the penalty for the reason that they have paid the tax and interest even prior to the issue of the adjudication order and the first proviso to Section 78 stipulates that if the tax and interest are paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the adjudication order determining the tax, the amount of penalty liable to be paid under Section 78 shall be 25% of the service tax so determined.

3. In the result, the penalty under Section 76 is set aside and the penalty under Section 78 is reduced to 25%.

4. Appeal is partly allowed as above.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 12-04-2010 ??

??

??

??

2