Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Soldiers Industrial Security Agencies vs Commissiorer Of Central Excise And ... on 18 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007[8]S.T.R.152, [2007]9STT186
ORDER T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides.
2. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether enhancement of penalty under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik is proper and legal. The Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax Cell), Central Excise & Customs, Nashik IV Division while deciding tne case vide order in original dated 13.9.04 imposed penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 on the assessee. The assessee failed to pay the service tax from July, 1999 to March 2004 on or before the stipulated period. Therefore, show cause notice was issued for contravention of provisions of Section 68 & 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 for imposing penalty under Section 76 & 77 ibid. On adjudication of the matter, the service tax amounting to Rs. 2,54,506/- and interest amounting to Rs. 13,328/- has been appropriated since paid and further penalty of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- was imposed. The assessee also paid penalty of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- after adjudication. This order has been reviewed by the Commissioner and enhanced the penalty equal to the service tax i.e. Rs. 2,54,506/-. Hence this appeal.
3. The contention of the assessee is that there exist no valid grounds for enhancement of penalty, the Special Registration Scheme introduced in the month of October 2004 for registration of various entrepreneurs who come under network of service tax provides that if they get registered on or before 31-Oct-2004 and pay service tax with interest there on, no penalty can be imposed. The contention of the assessee is that they already got registered prior to introduction of this scheme and there is no reason as to why this Special Registration Scheme being not extended to them also. The Commissioner, in his impugned order, has negated this contention.
4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal where enhanced penalty is set aside.
i) Tribunal Order No. A/332-333/III/SMC/WZB/06 dated 6.2.2006 in the case between M/s Sharad jambhekar & Associates and Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik.
ii) Tribunal Order No. A/320/1V/SMC/WZB/06 dated 15.2.2006 in the case between Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik v. Shri Ashish Patil.
iii) Dewal Tours & Travels v. CCE, Jaipur-II 2006-TIOL-470-CESTAT-DEL
iv) CCE, Bhpal v. Bhojpur Club 2006-TIOL-486-CESTAT-DEL
5. I have considered contentions of both sides. Keeping in view the payment of original penalty of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- and principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the view that the assessee has got strong prima-facie case, as such pre deposit is waived and stay is granted from its recovery pending disposal of the appeal. Application is allowed. List the appeal in its turn.
(Dictated in Court)