Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Maraketforce (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 6 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007[8]S.T.R.175, [2007]13STT276
ORDER Karthikeyan, Member (T)
1. This application has been filed by M/s. Marketforce (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 which works out to Rs. 44,243/-.
2. After hearing both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal after waiving the requirement of predeposit.
3. The appeal against the impugned order also challenges the demand of service tax on the basis that quantification relating to certain months of the material period July 2003 to May 2004 was inaccurately made. The major ground taken in the appeal and the stay application is that the assessee being new to the tax tailed in complying with the provisions of the law and that omissions had occurred owing to their ignorance of statutory provisions and procedures. The delay in making monthly payments had occurred owing to the above reason. The appellants had paid Rs. 2,43,559/- out of the total demand of Rs. 3,27,595/- before issuance of show cause notice. The remaining amount has also been paid.
4. Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that he is not pressing the challenge against the demand of service tax and prays for vacating penalties imposed on them. He reiterates the appellants' plea that the omissions had occurred due to their ignorance of the provisions. He has also cited the decision of the Tribunal in Catalyst Capital Service Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-IV 2005 (184) ELT 34 (Tri.Mumbai), wherein, in a case of similar facts the Tribunal had waived the penalty finding that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellants in making the late payment of service tax. Ld. SDR submits that in all the months during the material period the appellants had recovered service tax from their clients but deposited the amounts with the Department belatedly. He also submits that the penalty for late filing of returns and late payment of service tax is sustainable.
5. On a careful consideration of the records and the submissions made by both sides, I find that the appellants had consistently paid service tax beyond the due date. However, it appears that the late payment of service tax every month was not on account of any mala fide intention on the part of the appellants. The act provides for waiver of penalty where sufficient cause is shown. Considering the fact that the appellants have already paid the service tax due, I consider it sufficient that the assessee pays an amount of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act and Rs. 500/- under Section 77 of the Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)