Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Concast Ferro Inc vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 24 January, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20096 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: ST/578/2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.32/2009 (V-I) ST dated 17/03/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam] Concast Ferro Inc. Village- Dusi, Dist. Srikakulan Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - Visakhapatnam-I Central Excise Building Port Area Visakhapatnam - 530 035 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. B.S. Janapati, Consultant No. 231, 8th E Main, Kalyan Nagar Ist Block, Bangalore - 560 043 For the Appellant Mr. A.K. Nigam, Additional Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 24/01/2014 Date of Decision: 24/01/2014 Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Pig Iron and Portland Cement. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by issue of show-cause notice on 01.11.2007 proposing to appropriate the amount already paid by the appellant towards service tax liability with interest with considerable delay. Further penalty equal to the service tax payable was also imposed. The appellant contended that the delay in payment of service tax was found during the scrutiny of the returns filed by them for the period ending 31.03.2006, 30.09.2006 and 31.03.2007 and the entire short payment had been paid with interest before the issue of show-cause notice. It was also submitted that even though a portion of the demand was time-barred, the appellant had paid the tax with interest. However penalty was imposed under Section 76 also.
2. Learned counsel submitted that in this case the entire amount short paid was made good by the appellant much before the issue of show-cause notice. Further he fairly admitted that there was a balance of Rs. 71,624/- payable towards interest as per the order-in-original. Further he also submitted that the abatement of 75% which was available to the appellant as a receiver of service in respect of GTA service was not at all availed by them and while confirming the demand this aspect has not been taken into account and if the abatement of 75% is allowed, the amount paid by them would be substantially higher than what is due. The appellant is not challenging the service tax liability but is only seeking waiver of penalty by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of Finance act 1994. Even though appellant had paid more service tax than what was due, yet the appellant paid the interest of Rs. 71,624/- demanded on 25.11.2008.
3. Having regard to the circumstances discussed above, I consider that appellant is eligible for the benefit of Section 80 of Finance Act 1994 as far as penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act 1994. Even though appellant did not pay the entire amount of service tax along with interest before the issue of show-cause notice, even though they were eligible for abatement, yet they have paid interest liability after the demand was confirmed. Under these circumstances, by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act 1994, the penalty imposed under Section 76 of Finance Act 1994 is set aside. Appeal is decided in the above terms.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in court on 24.01.2014) (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss