Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Transrail Lighting Ltd vs C.C.E.C. & S.Tax,Vapi on 13 June, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, O-20, NMH Compound Ahmedabad Service Tax Appeal No.13428 of 2014-SM Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.VAP-EXCUS-000-APP 180-181-14-15 dated 25.7.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Vapi. Transrail Lighting Ltd .. Appellants Vs. C.C.E.C. & S.Tax,Vapi .. Respondent-Revenue
Appearance:
Present Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate for the appellants Present Shri A. Mishra, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision:13.6.2017 Final Order No.A/11283/2017 Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
Heard both sides. This appeal is filed against the Order-in- Appeal No. VAP-EXCUS-000-APP 180-181-14-15 dated 25.7.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Vapi.
2. The appellant in the present case disputes the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Ld. Advocate Shri S.J. Vyas for the appellant submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and requested for centralized registration of service tax through online application dated 28.4.2010 as they were providing taxable service under the category of Erection and Commissioning and Installation service. The relevant documents were submitted to the Range Office on 29.4.2010. Subsequently, they received the centralized registration on 21.2.2012 and within a weeks time i.e. on 29.2.2012 they paid the entire amount of service tax. Subsequently, they have also paid the interest. Show cause notice was issued to them on 19.8.2013 for appropriation of the said amount and proposal for penalty.
3. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that delay in payment of service tax was due to late receipt of centralized registration. He submits that the entire amount of service tax Rs.17,10,916/- with interest of Rs.1,74,249/- for the period 1.4.2010 to October 2011 was paid before issuance of show cause notice. It is his contention that due no fault on their part, but on account of inordinate delay by the Department in providing centralized registration, the service tax could not be paid in time. It is his contention that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have invoked Section 80 of the Finance Act and dropped the penal provision against them.
3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
4. I find that undisputedly, the appellant made online application to the Department for centralized registration through on 28.4.2010. However, the said registration was granted to the appellant only on 21.2.2012. Pursuant to the said registration, the appellant paid the entire amount of service tax on 29.2.2012 and thereafter, the interest. Thus, there is considerable delay on the part of the Department in accepting the centralized registration application filed by the appellant. I find force in the contention of the ld. Advocate for the appellant that without obtaining registration, the banks do not accept the payment of service tax. In these circumstances, considering the fact that the entire amount of service tax and interest had been paid by the appellant, therefore, this is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, invoking Section 80, penalties imposed on the appellant are dropped and the impugned order appeal is allowed on this count.
(Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) scd/ Appeal NoST/13428/2014-SM 1