2013 (12) TMI 1076

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1. The appellant is a public sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products. They were utilizing the services of truck operators for transport of their petroleum products from their refineries and warehouses to various retail outlets. When a new levy was imposed on services rendered by Goods Transport Agency w.e.f. 01-01-2005 a doubt arose whether the appellant had to pay se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 31-03-2006. The Revenue issued show cause notice demanding interest not paid and for imposing penalty under section 76 for belated payment. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 39,28,569/-as interest along with penalty of Rs.6,21,600/- under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the appellant initially filed an appeal challenging both interest ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fter some point of time, it was considered that there was no point in pursuing the matter and they fell in line with the advice given by the Ministry of Finance. He submits that there was no deliberate attempt to avoid any payment of service tax and it was only a case of genuine doubt regarding scope of levy. Therefore, he submits that penalty imposed by the impugned order may be set aside. He sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1. AircellDigilink India Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur 2004 (173) ELT 31 (Tri.-Del.) 2. Bharti Cellular Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi 2006 (3) STR 423 (Tri.-Del.) 3. RPG Enterprises Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai 2008 (11) STR 488 (Tri.-Mumbai) 4. Camlin Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai 2009 (14) STR 520 (Tri.-Mumbai) 5. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur 2013 (29) STR 229 (Raj.) 4. I have considered submissions on both sides. I find that....