Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Jai Drinks (P) Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 2 August, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066. BENCH-,,,,,SM Date of Hearing/Decision:15.12.2010 Service Tax Appeal No.83/2007-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.300 (GRM)ST/JPR-I/2006 dated 14.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur]. M/s.Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant :Shri.Saurabh Yadav, Advocate Present for the Respondent:Shri.A. Khanna, JDR Coram: HONBLE MR. D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ORDER NO. _______________ DATED:15.12.2010 PER: D.N.PANDA Ld. Counsel submits that it appears the appellant has no cause to press the appeal further. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
2. Later ld. Counsel submits that because of non-availability of judgement in the case of Agauta Sugar & Chemicals vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida reported in 2010 (19) S.T.R. 849 (Tri.-LB), the appellant although has no cause to press the Service Tax demand in view of the law settled in the above case, it should not suffer penalty and other consequence of law, when the law was in debatable stage.
3. Ld. DR also is of the view that the matter of levy travelled so long till the issue was settled by the Larger Bench in the aforesaid case. For the default to pay taxes there shall be penalty.
4. Heard both sides and appreciated the reason of debatable stage of law travelling long period. Certainly confusion is likely to occur among the tax payers about the levy itself. Such a mitigating factor may not be ruled out to be a reasonable cause under section 80 of the Finance Act 1994 to waive the penalty levied under section 76 of the said Act in absence of any malafide on the part of the appellant. Even the first appellate authority did not make any finding on the levy of penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act 1994. But merely confirmed the adjudication order.
5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, confirming the service tax demand, the penalty imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 is waived and the order of dismissal passed aforesaid is recalled with the consequence indicated later.
6. The order aforesaid has been passed on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as stated above.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Anita