2014 (6) TMI 624 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant's Penalty for Service Tax Non-Furnishing Set Aside

SHREE DHAR INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I

The penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-furnishing of information regarding Service Tax was set ... Penalty u/s 77 - whether the three letters issued by the department can be held to be served upon the appellant or not - Held that:- The appellants’ contention is that they have not received the said letters whereas the Revenue’s stand is that the same were sent to them through courier - As the disputes relates to the receipts of said letters seeking information, which stands contested by the appellant, by extending the benefit of the appellant I set aside imposition of penalty - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Penalty under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-furnishing of information regarding Service Tax on services received.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged a penalty of Rs. 51,600/- imposed on the appellant under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 for not providing details of services received during 1-1-2005 to 31-12-2007.2. The department issued a show cause notice as the appellant failed to furnish the required information in time. The appellant eventually provided the information on 25-11-2009, after the department's repeated requests.3. The Revenue's case was based on the fact that the Superintendent of Central Excise and Service Tax had requested the details through letters dated 25-7-2008, 25-2-2009, and 17-6-2009, but the appellant responded only in November 2009, leading to the imposition of the penalty.4. Contrary to the Revenue's claim, the appellant contended that they did not receive the letters dated 25-7-2008, 25-2-2009, and 17-6-2009, thus denying any failure on their part to respond.5. The main issue revolved around whether the letters from the department requesting information were effectively served on the appellant. The appellant maintained they did not receive the letters, while the Revenue argued they were sent via courier.6. Considering the dispute regarding the receipt of the letters and in favor of the appellant's claim of non-receipt, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.7. The judgment was pronounced on 16-1-2013 by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.