Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Vijaya Clearing And Forwarding Agency vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 4 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(123)ELT930(TRI-MUMBAI), 2006[2]S.T.R.287
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. On hearing Shri Rajeev L. Shukla, Proprietor of the applicant company, it appeared that the very issue having been settled in an earlier order the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done after granting waiver of the condition of the pre deposit of penalty of Rs. 10,800/-.
2. The appellants are CHAs. The service Tax was imposed on CHAs w.e.f. 16-7-1997. The appellants were expected to file the due returns on 15-10-1997 for the quarter ending September 1997 and on 15-1-1998, for the quarter ending December 1997. The appellants, however, filed the returns on 24-1-1998. After issue of SCN, the Assistant Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,800/- on the appellants under Section 77 of the Finance Act 1994. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order and hence the appeal.
3. I find that the same issue was decided in Tribunal Order No. C-II/2565-66/WZB/C-II/99, dated 1-10-1999 in the case of M/s. tiarilal & Co.; Appeal No. ST/15.99-Mum, who were also CHAs. The delay in filing of the appeal was identical. The reason put forth in the present appeal were the same as in that appeal. In dealing with that appeal the Tribunal made the following observation.
5. The prayer made in this appeal is that the delay in the filing of the first quarter, was unintentional and that the delay in filing of the return of the second quarter was marginal that is, about one week only. Following judgments have been cited where the Tribunal held that during the initial introduction of Service Tax the assesses may not have known the law and therefore, the imposition of penalty was not warranted.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Somani v. CCE, Kanpur 1998 (28) RLT 54.
Ashok Rastogi v. CCE Kanpur . Shri Sajjan Kumar Kariwala v. CCE 1997 (20) RLT 885. Synthetics Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur 1997 (20) RLT 886. Ashwani Associates v. CC, New Delhi .
It is further stated that the clients of the CHA who were at that time responsible for payment of the service tax, had already deposited the same in time and therefore, there was loss (sic) of revenue to the Government. I have seen the cited judgments. The judgments took into account the fact of the service tax was freshly imposed on the assessees and also that the burden of tax stood discharged. The leniency was shown on this count. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to reduce the total quantum of penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. Subject to this modification, appeal is dismissed.
Following the ratio of this judgment the total quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. Subject to this modification appeal is dismissed.