Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Jay Security Services vs Commissioner Of Customs, C. Ex. And ... on 29 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: [2008]13STJ266(CESTAT-AHMEDABAD)
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. As per facts on record, show cause notice was issued to the appellant for confirmation of demand of service tax against them as "Security Agency". The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed the service tax along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said order was reviewed by the Commissioner, who enhanced the penalty equivalent to the amount of tax and also confirmed interest of Rs. 3,627/- in addition to the interest of Rs. 2,11,281/- already paid by the appellant. The said order of the Commissioner is impugned before me.
2. It is seen that the period involved in the present appeal is from April 1999 to March, 2004. The appellants were registered with the Department on 29.9.03 and it is their submission that they were not aware of leviability of the service tax upon them. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn my attention to the Extra-ordinary Taxpayer Friendly Scheme dated 20-9-2004, which is to the effect that if the entire tax as regards the past service tax liability stands paid along with interest by 30.10.04, no penalty shall be imposable. Admittedly, the appellants have paid tax before the said date. As such, it is their prayer that the penalty enhanced by the Commissioner be set aside. For the above proposition, reliance has been placed on the various decisions of the Tribunal.
3. As regards the above, learned SDR argued that the appellants were registered with the Department with effect from 29.9.03 and as such, the provisions of Extra-ordinary Friendly Scheme will not apply as held by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Bhopal v. Mankodi Enterprises 2006 (2) STR 150 (Tri-Delhi) and in the case of Pankaj Oil Trading Corporation v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad 2007 (6) STR 44 (Tri- Delhi).
4. I have gone through both the above decisions. It is seen that in both cases, the issue relates to payment of service tax after the registration, whereas in the present case, the dispute is as regards the service tax prior to the period of registration. As such, the ratio of the law as declared in both the cases is not applicable. I find that the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services & Worker's Cont. 2006 (3) STR 703 (Tri- Delhi) has held that service provider registered with the department is entitled to the benefit of the said scheme if the service tax for the past period stands paid by him by 30.10.04. The said decision stands followed by the Tribunal in the case of Soldiers Indus. Security Agencies v. C.C.E., Nasik 2007 (7) STR 283 (Tri.).
5. As such, by following the ratio of the above decision, I find no justification for enhancement of penalty upon the appellant. The appeal is accordingly, allowed by restoring the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 29.2.2008)