Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Nagar Palika Parishad vs C.C.E & S.T. Meerut-I on 14 August, 2014
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Court No. IV
Date of Hearing: 14.08.2014
Appeal No. ST/60214/2013 SM[BR]
[Arising out of Order-in-appeal No.23-ST/MRT-I/2013,dt.17.07.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Custom, Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I]
For approval and signature:
Honble Sh. Manmohan Singh, Member (Technical)
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Nagar Palika Parishad Appellant
Vs
C.C.E & S.T. Meerut-I Respondent
Appearance:
None for the Appellant Sh. V.P.Barta, AR for the Respondent Coram:
Sh. Manmohan Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53232/2014 Per Manmohan Singh:
1. Appellant are in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 23/ST/MRT-I/2013 dt. 17.07.2013. They were not present on 23.04.2014, notice was issued on 13.06.2014. Letter of the Counsel requesting postponement as he suffered from heat stroke. Sufficient time was given to fixing hearing on 14.08.2014.
2. None appeared from the appellant. It appeared that they are not interested to following the judicial process. In view of the above, appeal was taken up for finalization with the assistance of the Ld. DR.
3. On the perusal of the facts, it is seen that M/s. Nagar Palika Parishad is engaged in renting of immovable property which is defined under section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 in the category of Renting of immovable property services.
4. The Order-in-Original No. 46/ADC/MRT-I/2013 dt. 30.03.2013, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Meerut-I hereinafter referred to as the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority while deciding the case confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 21,86,863/- under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest. Penalty of similar amount was also imposed.
5. Learned AR pointed out that the information was not provided by the appellant suo moto. It was only after Department made effort to get the information through RTI. The required information was received giving the month-wise amount of rent collected. The Commissioner (Appeal) in his order No. 23/ST/MRT-I/2013 dt. 17.07.13 confirmed the demand. However, on their request he fairly accepted the request for waiver of the penalty under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 after finding that appellants were under bonafide belief that they were not liable to pay service tax being an statutory Government Department. Accordingly penalty under section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 was waived.
6. They have come in appeal before the Honble Tribunal against the confirmation of duty by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that extended period of limitation could not be invoked. They raised issue of limitation showing that the demand is partly time barred. On the other hand, they also pleaded that they always have the bonafide belief that service tax was not leviable on them.
7. Ld. DR pointed out that in the order of ld. Adjudicating Authority at para 4.6, there is no order of appropriation of the partly deposited amount of Rs.5,66,986/-. However, he requested for the appropriation for an amount or Rs.7,82,176/- in para 2.1 of their ground on appeal, since appropriation could be considered by the Adjudicating Authority after going through the relevant period.
8. I have gone through the records as well as written submissions provided by them, I find that Commissioner (Appeals) has fairly accepted the request that penalty invoking under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, was not leviable as bonafides were proved. The Ld. DR submitted that appellants contended that they were not aware about leviability of service tax on renting of immovable property services. He also pleaded that ignorance of Law cannot come to the waiver for the payment of duty. However it is fairly considered by dropping the penalty. Appellant have also complained that M/s. Nagar Palika Parishad have not been co-operating with the Department and have not provided them required information which has ultimately been collected by taking the recourse to RTI.
9. In view of above discussion, ii comes out that the penalty is rightly waived. But challenge to invocation of extended period of limitation on payment of duty due to ignorance of Law is not a valid ground. Once a service is provided and that service is taxable, tax liability has to be discharged accordingly.
10. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in this order passed by the Commissioner. The Appeal is rejected.
[Order pronounced & dictated in the open court] (Manmohan Singh) Member (Technical) S.Kaur 1