Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Advanced Technology Services vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 29 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2006[ ]S.T.R.184
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of personal penalty of Rs. 14,326.00 (Rupees fourteen thousand three hundred and twenty-six) involved in all the three cases, I take up the three appeals together, as they arise out of the same impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The penalties have been imposed upon the appellants under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the appellants' failure to deposit the Service Tax in time. Shri P.K. Das, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the appellant company is a Vastu Architect and they were under the bona fide belief that a Vastu Shastra Practitioner is not covered by the service of architect. As such, they applied for registration only in August, 1999 and cleared all the back dues by October, 1999. In these circumstances, imposition of personal penalty upon the appellant company was not justified. In the alternative, Shri P.K. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant company, prays for reduction in penalties.
3. After hearing Shri A.K. Mondal, learned SDR for the Revenue, I find that the penalty is imposable for late deposit of the Service Tax. However, keeping in view the bona fides of the appellant company, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 14,326.00 (Rupees fourteen thousand three hundred and twenty-six) to Rs. 3,000.00 (Rupees three thousand). But for the above modification in the quantum of penalty, the appeals are otherwise rejected. Stay Petitions also get disposed of.
(Dictated in the open Court)