Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Delhi Tourism And Transportation ... vs Cce on 22 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(112)ECC613, 2006ECR613(TRI.-DELHI), 2007[7]S.T.R.202
ORDER P.K. Das, Member (J)
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant in respect of imposition of penalty of Rs. 31,367/- for default in payment of service tax during the month of May, 2003 to September, 2003.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business/profession of Air Travel Agent. It has been alleged that the appellant short paid the service tax amounting to Rs. 31,367/- which was paid on 5.11.2004 after receipt of the show cause notice dated 12.10.2004.
3. Shri Y.K. Maghan, Manager (Finance) appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is Public Sector Undertaking fully owned by the State Government of NCT of Delhi, They had been paying service tax towards services of tourism and air ticketing as well as outdoor catering etc. They were not aware about upward change in the service tax rates from 0.5% to 0.8% and 0.25% to 0.4% on tour operator and air ticketing services and the differential amount of tax of Rs. 31,367/- could not be deposited in time. However, on receipt of the show cause notice dated 12.10.2004 they immediately deposited the said amount on 5.11.2004. He submits that it is a case of bonafide error on the part of the appellant. He also submits that the appellant paid tax at old rate within the stipulated period and filed returns accordingly. He submits that it is a public sector undertaking and there is no gain on their part for default payment of service tax. He cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of N.C. Maheshwari & Co. v. CCE -Delhi-I - .
4. Heard the learned D.R. He reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. After considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the record, I find that the appellant deposited the service tax at the old rate within the stipulated period and filed returns to the Department. I find that the appellant is a public sector undertaking and delay in payment of differential amount of service is due to bonafide error. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty is not justified and the impugned order is set aside.
6. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court).