Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S N. C. Banerjee & Co vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Kolkata on 8 July, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
SP-414/10
& S.T. Appeal No.175/10
Arising out of Order-in-Original No.163/ST/DIV-I/KOL/2007-08 dated 10.12.2007 passed by Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata.
For approval and signature:
DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
M/s N. C. Banerjee & Co.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE Shri K. K. Banerjee, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri M. B. Bal, JDR for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of hearing & decision : 08.07.2010 ORDER NO..
Per Dr. Chattaranjan Satapathy :
Heard both sides.
2. For the reason stated below, the requirement of predeposit is waived and the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of both sides.
3. The appellants are not contesting the liability to pay the service tax amount, but they are contesting the interest demand. The lower appellate authority has recorded in his finding that while dismissing the writ petition of the appellants, the Honble High Court of Calcutta did not grant any waiver in so far as the payment of service tax and interest are concerned. I have gone through the Order dated 22nd May, 2003 passed by the Honble High Court of Calcutta, which states as follows :
However, considering the fact that due to the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners did not take any step in compliance with the statute. Mr. Chatterjee, ld. Sr. Advocate, submitted that some suitable time should be granted to his clients for compliance with the provisions of the law. The ld. Additional Solicitor General submitted that this Court should follow the directions in this regard issued by the Bombay High Court. It is made clear that in the event the petitioners comply with the provisions of the statute within a period of 60 (sixty) days from date, no penal action against them shall be taken. It is also made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to raise supplementary bills on their clients, if they have not already realized service tax. This Court should not, however, be understood by this laxity granted to the petitioners to have condoned any of the lapses on the part of the petitioners. It is made specifically clear that the petitioners shall be liable to pay interest in accordance with law for the delayed compliance of the statute from the date it became applicable. It is made clear that the benefit of the order shall not be available to the non-petitioners.
Save as aforesaid, all interim orders are vacated and the petition is dismissed.
4. From the Honble High Courts Order, it is clear that the penal action against them has been waived subject to the condition that the appellants complied with the provisions of the statute within a period of 60 days. However, it has been specifically made clear in the aforesaid order that the appellants shall be liable to pay interest in accordance with law. Hence, I am of the view that the appeal has no merit as regards the demand of interest is concerned. Further, the payment of interest is a civil liability and not a penalty.
5. The appeal is dismissed. Stay petition also gets disposed off.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/ ( DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY ) TECHNICAL MEMBER mm 3 S.T.Appeal No.175/10