C.C.E. Vs. Chowgule Matrix Hobs Ltd.

C.C.E. vs Chowgule Matrix Hobs Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Dec 12, 2000

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20017

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/20017
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Judge: S Peeran, S T G.R.
Decided On: Dec 12, 2000
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.C.E.

Respondent

Chowgule Matrix Hobs Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(75)ECC401

Excerpt

.....be dismissed on this ground alone. be that as it may, the ground taken in the appeal is that notwithstanding the settlement of all the dues by the issue of form-3 under the kvs scheme, imposition of penalties should have been sustained by the commissioner (appeals).2. heard shri s.kannan, learned dr for the revenue, and shri appala raju, sr.commercial officer for the respondents.3. on consideration of the submissions, we agree with the reasoning given by the commissioner (appeals) that once the matter has been settled under the kvs scheme, the question of sustaining the penalty on the officers does not arise in the light of the tribunal decision cited supra. for imposition of penalty, involvement of officers with intention to evade payment of duty is required to be brought on record, which has not been done so in the order in original. therefore, in similar circumstance the tribunal judgment held that penalty in such circumstances cannot be imposed on the officers of the company under rule 209a of the ce rules, 1944. the ruling of the tribunal clearly settles the issue and there is no reason to take a different view. in this view of the matter, the appeal is rejected. the stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. The stay application and the appeal are taken up for final disposal as the issue lies in a short compass. The Commissioner (Appeals) by his order in appeal Nos. 100 to 102/2000(H-I) CE dated 19.6.2000 disposed of the appeal of the assessees by setting aside the penalties imposed on the three officers of the assessee i.e. S. V Shanmugam, Technical Director, Shri M.R. Bhat, Deputy General Manager and Shri Appala Raju, Sr Commercial Officer on the ground that the matter had been settled under the KVS Scheme and Form-3 has been issued by the Comm issioner in full and final settlement. Therefore, the question of penalty on the officers did not arise. In this connection he also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Z.U. Alvi v. CCE Bhopal as . In this case the Revenue should have filed three appeals, but has filed only one appeal which is not maintainable and the appeal can be dismissed on this ground alone. Be that as it may, the ground taken in the appeal is that notwithstanding the settlement of all the dues by the issue of Form-3 under the KVS Scheme, imposition of penalties should have been sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Heard Shri S.Kannan, learned DR for the Revenue, and Shri Appala Raju, Sr.Commercial Officer for the respondents.

3. On consideration of the submissions, we agree with the reasoning given by the Commissioner (Appeals) that once the matter has been settled under the KVS Scheme, the question of sustaining the penalty on the officers does not arise in the light of the Tribunal decision cited supra. For imposition of penalty, involvement of officers with intention to evade payment of duty is required to be brought on record, which has not been done so in the order in original. Therefore, in similar circumstance the Tribunal judgment held that penalty in such circumstances cannot be imposed on the officers of the Company under Rule 209A of the CE Rules, 1944. The ruling of the Tribunal clearly settles the issue and there is no reason to take a different view. In this view of the matter, the appeal is rejected. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tami... Same Parties C.C.E. vs Chowgule Matrix Hobs Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Peeran, S T G.R.

Service Tax Has been