2009 (6) TMI 82 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal waives penalty, citing appellant's cooperation. Decision not a precedent. Extension of stay application unnecessary.

GHANSHYAM LODHWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR-I

GHANSHYAM LODHWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR-I - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 310 (Tri. - Del.) , [2010] 24 STT 434 (NEW DELHI - CESTAT), 2011 (21) S.T.R. ... Issues:1. Extension of stay application2. Tax liability determination3. Penalty imposition and waiverExtension of Stay Application:The appeal in question was pending since 2008 with extensions of stay granted. The Bench, considering the smallness of the demand and lack of representation for the appellant, decided to proceed ex parte to examine the matter in detail. Ultimately, the Tribunal proposed to dispose of the appeal instead of granting further stay, as the demand was not significant.Tax Liability Determination:The issue revolved around the rental of a vehicle, which the hirer had exclusive control over, leading to a rent-a-cab situation. The Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the cum-duty aspect and imposed a penalty for the appellant's failure to comply with registration requirements. The Tribunal, after hearing the Revenue extensively and examining relevant documents, confirmed the tax liability determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) without interference, as the proceeding was not time-barred.Penalty Imposition and Waiver:Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal noted the appellant's cooperation with the Department in filing necessary documents and found no deliberate avoidance of registration. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal waived the penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, emphasizing the appellant's innocence and cooperation. The decision to waive the penalty was made based on the appellant's conduct and was not intended as a precedent due to the case's distinct features. The appeal was partially allowed, waiving the penalty but confirming the tax demand.Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision involved confirming the tax liability while waiving the penalty imposed, based on the appellant's cooperation and lack of deliberate avoidance of registration. The decision highlighted the distinct features of the case and emphasized that it should not be cited as a precedent. The application for an extension of stay was deemed infructuous in light of the Tribunal's order.