Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sarala Security Services vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 31 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.S.T.Ap.134/09
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.11/ST/B-II/2009 dated 02.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HON'BLE SHRI S.S. KANG, 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
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
M/s. Sarala Security Services
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR-II
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri Vinay Kr. Shraff, C.A. for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K. Sharma, Authorized Representative (JDR) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri S.S.Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing/Decision :- 31.07.2009 Date of Pronouncement :- 31.07.2009 ORDER NO............................................................................
Per Shri S.S.Kang.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Appellant filed this Appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of Service Tax of Rs.78,199/-(Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Nine only) was upheld and penalty is reduced to Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only). The Appellant tried to argue the case on merits. There is a finding that before the adjudicating Authority Appellant conceded that they are liable to pay the amount in question in respect of service provided by them and they had paid along with the interest also. In respect of imposition of penalty the contention is that there is no allegation of suppression in the show cause notice therefore the penalty is not sustainable.
3. I find when before the adjudicating Authority Appellant admitted that they had not paid Service Tax for the period they are liable to pay the Service Tax for the year 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 which is beyond the limitation of normal period.
4. show cause notice was issued for demand of Service Tax in the year 2005. Hence therefore I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby penalty of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) was imposed. The Appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) SD/ (S.S.KANG) VICE PRESIDENT sm 2 Appeal No.S.T.Ap.134/09