Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Commr.Service Tax- Ii Mumbai on 6 August, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT No. I
APPEAL No. ST/86299/2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 02/COMMR/ST-II/PK/2014-
15 dated 27.2.2015 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax-II,
Mumbai)
The Board of Control for Cricket in India Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S.S. Gupta, C.A., for appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 6.8.2018 Date of Decision: 6.8.2018 ORDER No. A/87046/2018 Per: Sanjiv Srivastava The appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner Service Tax Mumbai II dated 27.02.2015 issued on 31.03.2015.
2.0 Appellant in the present case M/s Board for Cricket Control in India was organizing various cricket matches. They have constituted a separate subcommittee namely Indian Premier League (IPL) for 2 ST/86299/2015 organizing T-20 cricket competitions in India and abroad. During course organizing the said tournaments, they hired the services of certain nonresident service providers namely M/s IMG and M/s Hawkeye for producing the live feed of the cricket matches being played in India to be telecasted on various TV Channels, against payment of commercial consideration for the IPL 2008, IPL 2009 & IPL 2010. The services received by the Appellant, were classifiable under the category of "Programme Producer's Service" and were leviable to Service Tax. Since the services were being provided by the nonresident service provider, the service tax liability was required to be discharged by the Service Recipient. Since the appellant had not paid the service tax due, in respect of payments made by them to the said nonresident service providers during the month of August and September 2010, a show cause notice dated 14.10.2011 was issued to them demanding the service tax due. The said show cause notice has been adjudicated, and Commissioner held as follows-
a) I order that the classification of services received by BCCI from the two service providers, M/s IMG Media Ltd & M/s Hawkeye Innovations, would fall within the definition of "programme producer's services" under section 65(105)(zzu) read with 3 ST/86299/2015 section 65(86a) and 65(86b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
b) I fully confirm the demand of service tax to the extent of Rs 1,59,92,743/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Nine Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Three Only) under Sec 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and order BCCI to pay the aforesaid service tax in terms of provisions of section 66A read with Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. Since the service tax liability of Rs 1,59,92,743/- was discharged by BCCI, I proceed to appropriate the said amount.
c) I order recovery of interest on the aforesaid service tax of Rs 1,59,92,743/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Nine Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Three Only) under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.
d) I impose a penalty of Rs 93,58,512/- (Rupees Ninety Three Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Twelve only) under Sec 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
e) I impose a penalty of Rs 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) under Sec 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
f) I refrain from imposing any penalty under Sec 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
4 ST/86299/2015
g) This order is issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against BCCI under the Finance Act, 1994 or under the provisions of any other Act for the time being in force in India. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner, Appellants have preferred this appeal. 3.0 In their appeal, Appellants have challenged the order of Commissioner on following grounds:
i. Revenue Neutrality- Since during the period under dispute, they were required to pay the service tax on their output services under the category of "Commercial Use or Exploitation of an Event". Since the service tax was required to be discharged on the output services the credit of service tax paid on input services received by them will be available to them in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Thus the service tax paid by them on reverse charge basis is available to them as CENVAT credit for discharging the tax liability on the output services hence the demand in the present case is totally revenue neutral and should be set aside on this ground itself.
ii. Commissioner should have exercised powers under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and not imposed any penalty on them because, any amounts that is being demanded by them in respect of the input 5 ST/86299/2015 services on the reverse charge basis would have been used to corresponding liability of tax on output services.
Since there was no gain to them in nonpayment of service tax on reverse charge basis, in this case reason existed for invoking the jurisdiction under section 80 to not impose the penalty.
4.0 We have heard Shri S S Gupta, Learned Chartered Accountant for the Appellant and Shri M K Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the revenue.
4.1 Arguing for the Appellant, Learned Chartered Accountant submitted-
a. It is an admitted fact that for the past period on the same issue, demand has been confirmed against them and the order of CESTAT upholding the demand has been upheld by the Apex Court. b. During the period of earlier demand that has been confirmed by the Apex Court, the output service provided by them was not a taxable service. The situation has changed because during the period of current demand, their output service was taxable under the category of "Commercial Use or Exploitation of an Event" service. Since their output service is a taxable service, even if the service tax demand in respect of the input services received by 6 ST/86299/2015 them namely "program producer's services" is confirmed and recovered from them the same will be available as credit to them for discharging the tax liability in respect of the output services provided by them. Hence this demand in the present case is revenue neutral. Since the demand is revenue neutral it cannot be held against them in view of decisions as follows-
i. Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd. [2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC)];
ii. Textile Corporation Marathwada Ltd [2008 (231) ELT 195 (SC)];
iii. Cochin Port Trust [2011 (21) STR 400 (Tri-
Bang)];
iv. Dinesh M Kotian Vs Commissioner [2016 (42) STR 772 (T-Mum)];
v. Siddeshwar Textile Mills Pvt Ltd. [2009 (248) ELT 290. (T-Mum)];
c. In view of the revenue neutrality no undue benefit has come to them, and hence no penalty should have been imposed on them by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.
4.2 For the revenue Learned Authorized Representative submitted-
7 ST/86299/2015 a. Issue in respect of levy of service tax on the services received by the Appellant from non residents under the category of "Program Producer's Service" has been settled by this tribunal in the Appellant's own case against them. The said order of the tribunal has been affirmed by the Apex Court. Hence there can be no further dispute in respect of levy of service tax on reverse charge basis in the present case. b. Revenue Neutrality as principle cannot be applicable in the present case because in the there can be no revenue neutrality as global concept. In the present case the tax is charged on reverse charge basis as the same is due from service provider who is not available or having any establishment in India. In none of the judgments referred to by the CA, the tax demanded was to be paid on reverse charge basis i.e. on the behalf of the provider of taxable by the service recipient. Thus the decisions are clearly distinguishable.
c. Since the Appellants have not paid the service tax on the due date, the penalty has been levied under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, at the applicable rate for the period of delay. No reasonable case has been made out for invoking section 80. He also relied on the decision of tribunal in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited [2011-TIOL-552-CESTAT-MUM] for 8 ST/86299/2015 the reason that penalty can be imposed on the Public Sector Units also in cases where they have contravened the provisions of Act and Rules. 5.0 We have considered the submissions made. There is no dispute about the fact the services provided by the nonresident service providers namely M/s IMG and M/s Hawkeye for producing the live feed of the cricket matches being played in India for the appellants have been held to be classifiable as "Programme producer's Service" and hence liable to service tax under the said category. [Board of Cricket Control for India Vs Commissioner [2015 (37) ELT STR 785 (T-MUM)] upheld by the Apex Court [2015 (37) STR J176 (SC)]. Thus the service tax in respect of this service was due from the Appellant on reverse charge basis and was to be paid by them on the due date as prescribed.
6.0 Appellants have argued that in the present case the output services provided by them were taxable under the category of "Commercial Use or Exploitation of Events" and hence they would have taken the credit of tax paid by them on reverse charge basis in respect of the input services received by them. Since the entire amount of tax demanded by them would be available as credit to them the demand of tax is not justified against them, in view of the decisions cited by them. The 9 ST/86299/2015 argument advanced by the Appellant do not appear to be convincing as in the present case the Service Tax liability which is being determined, is in respect of the services received by them from the nonresident service provider. This is not the case of payment of tax on the forward charge basis, and the tax is payable by the recipient of the service, as if the same was due from the service provider. All the cases referred to by the Appellant are in respect of the demand of tax/ duty on the forward charge basis.
6.1 In case of Coca Cola referred by the Appellant, Apex Court has in para 3 to 7 held as follows:-
"3. M/s. Britoo Food Company Limited was a wholly owned subsidiary of Coca Cola Company which has changed its name to Coca Cola India Limited. The assessee filed an application for such change in its name, which was allowed.
4. Assessee is the manufacturers of, inter alia, their products, namely, 'Non- alcoholic beverages bases / concentrates', which the Assessee or their bottlers required for making beverages and aerated waters, and which, in turn, were sold by the bottlers under the name of Coca-Cola, Thumps Up, Gold Spot, Limca, Citra, etc.
5. The assessee in paragraph No. 3 of its counter-affidavit has stated, as under:
"3. The present appeal has no Revenue implication. The dispute relates to classification of beverage bases/ concentrates 10 ST/86299/2015 manufactured by the Respondent, which are supplied to bottlers, who in turn use the same as raw material in the manufacture of beverages. They duty payable in respect of beverage basis/concentrates is modvatable. Since the duty payable by the Respondent is modvatable, there is no revenue implication. The issue of classification is therefore, academic. No purpose would be served by entertaining the present appeal." (page 86 of the Paper book]
6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the assessee that the excise duty paid and the Modvat credit availed under Notification No. 5/94-C.E.(N.T.), dt. 1-3-1994 were identical and therefore consequences of payment of excise duty after availing Modvat credit was revenue neutral.
7. In view of the stand taken by the assessee in the counter affidavit and the statement made by the learned counsel for the assessee, the appeals are dismissed leaving the question of law open. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
In our view Supreme Court has in this decision has not made any pronouncement in respect of the quashing the demands on the ground of revenue neutrality. 6.2 In case Textile Corporation Marathwada Ltd supra the issue under consideration was levy of the Central Excise duty at each stage of manufacture by the same manufacturer in the same manufacturing facility. In 11 ST/86299/2015 this case as per para 2, of the Apex Court decision department has accepted the order of Tribunal in case of similarly placed manufacturer [Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd [2000 (119) ELT 636 (T)]] whereby tribunal has held that if duty was to be paid at each stage of manufacture then manufacturer will be entitled to MODVAT credit of duty so paid. Thus Apex Court has held that since amount of duty so paid at each stage of manufacture will be available as credit at the subsequent stage, the entire exercise is revenue neutral. The case is distinguishable from the present case as in this case there was no effective transaction of the goods from one stage of manufacture to next stage of manufacture, and the liability to pay the Central Excise Duty at each stage of manufacture was on the same person/ manufacturer. However in the present case there is a transaction between the nonresident service provider and service recipient in India and this transaction is leviable to service tax and payment of same is to be made by the recipient of the service in the manner prescribed. Since in present case the tax was actually payable by the service provider, but for the reason of him not being available in India, the same is recoverable from the service recipient.
12 ST/86299/2015 In case of Siddeshwar Textile Mills Pvt Ltd [2009 (248) ELT 290 (T)], tribunal found the facts of the case identical to the case considered by the Apex Court in case of Textile Corporation Marathwada Ltd and has followed the said decision. Since the facts of present case distinguishable from the case Textile Corporation Marathwada Ltd they are distinguishable from the facts of this case too. Accordingly the said decision would have no impact in present case.
6.3 In case of Cochin Port Trust, tribunal has in para 5.1 recorded as follows:
"As regard royalty, we find that CPT received part of revenue earned by IGTPL as consideration for allowing IGTPL to operate the port whereas IGTPL rendered the service taxable under port service and paid the tax due on the total revenue. We do not find 1/3 of that revenue received by CPT liable to tax under Port Service at the hands of the appellant. Letting out the port premises for operation by IGTPL does not amount to rendering of the port service. In any case, if at all any service tax is paid on this amount, the same will be available to IGTPL as CENVAT Credit to IGTPL as CENVAT Credit, which can be used for paying service tax on port services rendered by it."
In our view this decision has been rendered for the reason that bench found that the letting out of the premises by CPT to IGTPL for rendering the port 13 ST/86299/2015 services would fall under the category of port service and taxable accordingly. Thus this decision cannot be said to be an authority for the purpose quoted in the present case.
6.4 In case of Jay Yushin [2000 (119) ELT 718 (T-LB)] a larger bench of tribunal laid down the following criteria for determining revenue neutrality and its consequences.
(a) Revenue neutrality being a question of fact, the same is to be established in the facts of each case and not merely by showing the availability of an alternate scheme.
(b) Where the scheme opted for by the assessee is found to have been misused (in contradistinction to mere deviation or failure to observe all the conditions) the existence of an alternate scheme would not be an acceptable defence.
(c) With particular reference to modvat scheme (which has occasioned this reference) it has to be shown that the Revenue neutral situation comes about in relation to the credit available to the assessee himself and not by way of availability of credit to the buyer of the assessee's manufactured goods.
Examining the facts of the case in light of the above, we find that the case cannot be revenue neutral in view of the fact that in this case because service tax is being demanded from the Appellant only for the reason that 14 ST/86299/2015 the service provider is nonresident, in case service provider was located in India, service tax would have been paid by him in respect of the present transactions. Manner of payment of the tax would not change the nature of levy and in any case if the argument of revenue neutrality is accepted as permissible defense in the present case entire scheme of payment of taxes on reverse charge basis will become otiose and no business liable to pay service tax would be required to pay service tax in respect of services received by them from nonresident service providers, for the reason that the tax so paid will be available as credit to them. 6.5 Decision of the tribunal in case of Dinesh M Kotian has been passed without taking into account the decision of larger bench in case of Jay Yushin and hence is rendered per in curiam.
6.6 In case of DharamPal Satyapal Vs Commissioner of Central Excise New Delhi [2005 (183) ELT 241 (SC)], on issue of availability of MODVAT credit as ground of for revenue neutrality Apex Court observed as follows:
"22. It was urged that the assessee was under
a bonafide impression that no duty was leviable on the goods; the full quantity of disputed goods was used captively and, therefore, proforma credit / modvat credit was available in respect thereof and, therefore, there was no intent to evade payment of 15 ST/86299/2015 duty. In support of the aforestated submissions, it was urged that suppression or breach of rules by itself would not amount to intention to evade; that some positive act of deliberate suppression or breach of rules was required to be shown by the department; that, if the assessee showed that credit available to it was equal to the demand then there may not be the case of intention to evade payment of duty. In this connection, reliance was also placed on the judgments of this Court in Amco Batteries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 2003 (153) ELT 7; Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (43) ELT 195; and Formica India Division v.
Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 (77) ELT 511.
23. We do not find merit in the above contentions. In this matter, we are concerned with the application of the above judgments to the facts of this case. The words "wilfulness" and "intent" in section 11A are expressions of mental state at the time of manufacture and clearance of the goods. The situs of the levy of central excise is on manufacture. Pricing and value of clearances are matters specially within the knowledge of the assessee. As stated above, the assessee herein was in the business of manufacture of chewing tobacco and its preparations for last couple of years. In the course of business, the assessee had dealt with similarly situated traders. It was fully aware that those traders who produced similar compounds had their units licensed or registered and yet the assessee herein did not take steps to get the above two units, in which the impugned 16 ST/86299/2015 compound (kimam) was manufactured, registered or licensed. As stated above, it has been buying a similar kimam from various traders. These circumstances constituted evidence of suppression brought on record by the department in answer to which it was contended on behalf of the assessee that they were under a bonafide impression that the compound was not excisable and that the benefit of proforma and modvat credit together with the benefit of exemption under notification no.121/94 dated 11.8.1994 was substantially equal to the demand for duty herein and, therefore, there was no intention to evade payment of duty.
24. We do not find any merit in these submissions. As stated above, the adjudication in this case was confined to the question of excisability and concealment of the existence of two units in which the compound (kimam) was manufactured. No explanation has been given by the assessee for not disclosing the affairs of these units, particularly when the assessee was in business for couple of years and when the assessee had been dealing with other traders who operated from licensed factories. It was for the assessee to explain the reasons for not getting the units registered or licensed. It was for the assessee to explain its failure to maintain the records under the 1944 Act and rules thereunder. In each of the above decisions, we find that there was substantial compliance of the rules under the said Act. In each of the decisions the findings indicate technical non compliance and not total non-compliance of the rules. It was for the assessee to explain the basis of its alleged bonafide impression. In this 17 ST/86299/2015 connection, no evidence was put before the commissioner about receipt and utilization of the compound in the manufacture of Tulsi Zafrani Zarda. No evidence was led to show that the amount of proforma / modvat credits was equal to the duty demanded, although it was urged that after 3/94, the liability to duty on inputs stood shifted to the final product.
25. Modvat is basically a duty collecting procedure which provides relief to the manufacturer on the duty element borne by him in respect of the inputs used by him. The relief is given under the modvat scheme on the actual payment of duty on the input. On such payment, the assessee gets a right to claim adjustment/set-off against the duty on the final product. The question of duty adjustment/set-off against duty on the final product was not in issue. In any event, no record on credit entitlement was produced. A right to claim proforma/modvat credit against duty on final product was different from the defence of bonafides in a case where circumstances mentioned in the proviso to section 11A(1) stands proved by the department for invoking larger period of limitation. The burden to prove the defence of bonafides was on the assessee and the assessee in this case has failed to prove its bonafides. Under modvat, excisable finished products made out of duty-paid inputs are given relief of excise duty to the extent of duty paid on inputs. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the department was justified in invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1)."
18 ST/86299/2015 7.0 In view of the discussions as above and the fact that issue in the present case has been decided by the Apex Court holding in the favour of revenue we have no hesitation in upholding the order of Commissioner confirming the demand of service tax along with the interest due. Now coming to the issue of penalty levied on the Appellant under Section 76. It is a settled principle in law by various, that penalty under section 76 is imposable for the delay in payment of service tax. The text of the said section is reproduced below:
"76. Any person, liable to pay service tax in accordance with the provisions of section 68 or the rules made under this Chapter, who fails to pay such tax, shall pay, in addition to such tax and the interest on that tax amount in accordance with the provisions of section 75, a penalty which shall not be less than two hundred rupees {substituted as one hundred rupees with effect from 8.04.2011 by Finance Act 2011} for every day during which such failure continues or at the rate of two per cent. {substituted as one percent with effect from 8.04.2011 by Finance Act 2011} of such tax, per month, whichever is higher, starting with the first day after the due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount of service tax:
Provided that the total amount of the penalty payable in terms of this section shall not exceed the service tax payable."
19 ST/86299/2015 Commissioner has in para 11.9 of his order determined the penalty in terms of the said section in following manner:
Upto 7.04.2011 From 8.04.2011
penalty @ Rs penalty @ Rs 100/
200/day or 2% day or 1%
Month August September August September
for which 10 10 10 10
Service
Tax Due
Due Date 6.09.10 6.10.10 6.09.10 6.10.10
for
payment
Tax 2803300 13189443 2803300 13189443
payable
Date of 14.1.15 14.1.15 14.1.15 14.1.15
Payment
No of 214 184 1377 1377
Days
Penalty = 42800 36800 137700 137700
No of
Days X
200/ 100
as the
case may
be
Penalty 399937 1617905 1286715 6053955
on
Percent
basis
Total 79600 275400
Penalty
on basis
of Rs 355000
200/ 100
per day
Total 1686652 7671860
Penalty
on 9358512
Percent
20 ST/86299/2015
basis
After calculating the penalty as above by both the methods as prescribed by the Section 76, Commissioner has imposed the higher of penalties as provided by the section.
7.1 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE & Cus. Vs Port Officer, reported at 2010 (19) STR 641 (Guj) has now settled the issue of penalty under Section
76. The relevant para is reproduced below ;
"10. A plain reading of Section 76 of the Act indicates that a person who is liable to pay service tax and who has failed to pay such tax is under an obligation to pay, in addition to the tax so payable and interest on such tax, a penalty for such failure. The quantum of penalty has been specified in the provision by laying down the minimum and the maximum limits with a further cap in so far as the maximum limit is concerned. The provision stipulates that the person, who has failed to pay service tax, shall pay, in addition to the tax and interest, a penalty which shall not be less than one hundred rupees per day but which may extend to two hundred rupees for everyday during which the failure continues, subject to the maximum penalty not exceeding the amount of service tax which was not paid. So far as Section 76 of the Act is concerned, it is not possible to read any further discretion, further than the discretion provided by the legislature when legislature has prescribed the minimum and the 21 ST/86299/2015 maximum limits. The discretion vested in the authority is to levy minimum penalty commencing from one hundred rupees per day on default, which is extendable to two hundred rupees per day, subject to a cap of not exceeding the amount of service tax payable. From this discretion it is not possible to read a further discretion being vested in the authority so as to entitle the authority to levy a penalty below the stipulated limit of one hundred rupees per day. The moment one reads such further discretion in the provision it would amount to re-writing the provision which, as per settled canon of interpretation, is not permissible. It is not as if the provision is couched in a manner so as to lead to absurdity if it is read in a plain manner. Nor is it possible to state that the provision does not further the object of the Statute or violates the legislative intent when read as it stands. Hence, Section 76 of the Act as it stands does not give any discretion to the authority to reduce the penalty below the minimum prescribed."
7.2 In case of Commissioner Central Excise vs. Krishna Poduval reported in 2006 TIOL-77-HC- KERALA-ST (1) STR 185 (Ker.) High Court upheld the penalty under Section 76, even when the penalty under Section 78 was there-
"11. The penalty imposable under Sec 76 is for failure to pay service tax by the person liable to pay the same in accordance with the provisions of Sec 68 and the rules made thereunder, whereas Sec 78 relates to penalty for suppression of the value of 22 ST/86299/2015 taxable service. Of course, these two offences may arise in the course of the same transaction, or from the same act of the person concerned. But we are of the opinion that the incidents of imposition of penalty are distinct and separate and even if the offences are committed in the course of same transaction or arises out of the same act, the penalty is imposable for ingredients of both the offences. There can be a situation where even without suppressing value of taxable service, the personal liable to pay service tax fails to pay. Therefore, penalty can certainly be imposed on erring persons under both the above sections, especially since the ingredients of the two offences are distinct and separate. Perhaps invoking powers under Section 80 of the Finance Act, the appropriate authority could have decided not to impose penalty on the assessee if the assessee proved that there was reasonable cause for the said failure in respect of one or both the offences. However, no circumstances are either pleased or proved for invocation of the said Section also. In any event, we are not satisfied that an assessee who is guilty of suppression deserves such sympathy. As such, we are of opinion that the learned single Judge was not correct in directing the 1st appellant to modify the demand withdrawing penalty under Sec 76. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge, to the extent it directs the first appellant to modify Ext. P1 by withdrawing penalty levied under Sec 76, is liable to be set aside and we do so. The cumulative result of the above findings would be that the Writ Petitions are liable to be 23 ST/86299/2015 dismissed and we do so. However, we do not make any order as to costs."
7.3 In case of CCE, Mangalore vs. K. Vijaya C. Rai (2011) 21 STR 224 (Kar) where the person did not pay service tax for three years after becoming liable and on being surveyed, it obtained the registration, but did not pay any service tax. Subsequent to issuance of show cause notice, it paid service tax with interest. The Hon'ble Tribunal set aside the order levying penalty. On appeal to High Court, Hon'ble High Court held that the Tribunal was carried away by the fact of Appellant being lady and could not notice that people having mala fide motives may use names of housewives. The Hon'ble High Court set aside the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal and upheld the penalty.
7.4 Various authorities as follows have upheld imposition of penalty under section 76 in case of delay in payment of service tax from the due date.
i. CCE Vs S J Mehta & Co., [2011 (21) STR 105 (Guj.)] ii. CCE Vs Bhavani Enterprises [2011 (21) STR 107 (Guj.)] iii. CCE & ST Vs First Flight Couriers Ltd [2007(8) STR 225 (Kar.)] 24 ST/86299/2015 iv. UOI Vs Aakar Advertising, [2008 (11) STR.5 (Raj.) v. UOI Vs Shiv Ratan Advertisers [2008 (12) STR 690 (Raj.)] 8.0 In view of the above discussions we do not find any reason to interfere with the penalty imposed in the present case.
9.0 In result the appeal filed is devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
(Pronounced in court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) (Sanjiv Srivastava) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical) tvu