TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter on further inquiry with the service provider i.e. appellant, it was revealed that they have discharged the service tax liability up to year 2005-06 only. However they had not paid service tax for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 for the amount received from M/s. Godavari Bio-Refinery Pvt Ltd against MRA services provided to the service receiver i.e. M/s. Godavari Bio-Refinery Pvt Ltd. During the visit to the Kopargaon Range Office, the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Custom & Service, Tax, Ahmednagar division called the representative of the service provider and the service receiver in the Range Office and apprised him about the provision of law. Accordingly the appellant agreed and discharged the service tax liability and paid the service tax of Rs. 6,55,995/- for the year 2007-08 alongwith interest of Rs. 1,72,830/- for the delay. Thereafter appellant further paid service tax amount of Rs. 10,67,561/- along with interest of Rs. 1,69,039/- for the year 2008-09. Thus, on pointing out by the department the service provider have discharged the total service tax liability for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 total amounting to Rs. 17,23,556/- along with interest Rs. 3,41,869/-. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eliance on the following judgments: (a) Uniworth Textiles Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2012 (288) ELT 161 (S.C.)] (b) Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-III, Gurgaon Vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd [2004 (168) ELT 466 (Tri.LB)] (c) Auto Transport Services Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Jaipur-II [2006 (3) S.T.R. 330 (Tri. Del.)] (d) Catalyst Capital Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Mumbai-IV [2006 (3) S.T.R. 582 (Tri. Mumbai)] (e) Catalyst Capital Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Mumbai-IV [2005 (184) ELT 34 (Tri.Mumbai)] (f) EDC Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa [2008 (10) S.T.R. 254 (Tri. Mumbai)] (g) Gupta Coal Field & Washeries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Service Tax, Nagpur [2013 (29) S.T.R. 166 (Tri. Mumbai)] (h) Sen Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur [2014 (33) S.T.R. 704 (Tri. Kolkata)] (i) Endeka Ceramics India Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Surat-II [2013 (31) S.T.R. 355 (Tri. Ahmd.)] (j) Avas Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III [2013 (32) S.T.R. 640 (Tri. Ahmd.)] (k) M.D. Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara [2013 (30) S.T.R. 389 (Tri. Ahmd.)] 4. On the other ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e payment of Service Tax. There is also provision in the Finance Act for waiver of the penalty where sufficient cause is shown. As the appellants had already deposited the Service Tax and as there was no mala fide intention in making the delayed payment, the penalty imposed thereof i.e. Rs. 7,105/- is hereby set aside. Penalty of Rs. 1,000/- towards late filing of Return is confirmed. EDC Ltd (supra) 4. On perusal of the records, I find that the appellants' being State Finance Corporation, were providing loans to the small industrial enterprises and enterprises carrying on other economic activities for starting, running, expanding and modernizing. On being pointed out that they are suppose to pay Service Tax, the appellant discharged the entire Service Tax liability along with interest before the issuance of show cause notice. To my mind, if the appellants have paid the Service tax and interest thereon before issuance of show cause notice, the question of imposition of penalty does not arise. The adjudicating authority has held that since the Service Tax liability is accepted and paid by the assessee and they had defaulted the payment for 435 days, an amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax on due dates, once payment along with interest in made before issuance of show cause notice, in such cases no show cause notice could be issued for imposition of penalty. In this regard I also find that Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) in his order has made a categorical finding that the elements of fraud, suppression, misstatement etc. were not present in this case. Revenue has not contested his findings by filing appeal. In view of these facts the appellants' case is fully covered by the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. 8. It is not in dispute in this case that the appellant had discharged the entire service tax liability and interest thereof before the issuance of show cause notice. The issue is regarding the imposition of penalty on the appellant under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that once the appellant has already discharged Service Tax liability and the interest thereon and no additional liability has been adjudged in the adjudication proceedings, provisions of section 73(3) will be applicable in this case and there was no necessity of issuing any show cause notice to the appellant. In such cases no penalty is imposable b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppression of facts and therefore we have to see whether in the facts and circumstances of this case suppression of fact or mis -declaration could be alleged. Obviously the Assistant Commissioner had visited the unit before the commercial operations had started and advised them to pay which was readily accepted. This coupled with the fact that appellants did not have qualified staff and they paid the service tax after the amounts were paid by them for the services received from time to time discharged the liability in full which is not in dispute would show that extended period could not have been invoked in this case. Moreover entire duty liability was discharged by July 2008 which is less than nine months from the visit of the officer which would again show that the payment was made promptly without any delay. Having regard to these facts and having regard to the fact that appellant was eligible for cenvat credit, we find that this was a case where provisions of Section 73(3) was applicable and no show cause notice should have been issued. Further we also find that this is a case where appellants have been able to show reasonable cause for non payment of the tax even if it is assu....