Techno SpIn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Techno SpIn Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Jan 30, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33986

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/33986
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Judge: R K Jeet
Decided On: Jan 30, 2004
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

Techno SpIn Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

1. this appeal filed by the appellants is directed against the order in appeal no. 18/2003 (cex) slm dated 31.3.2003 by which the commissioner has reduced the penalty from rs. 20,000/- to rs. 10,000/-.2. brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufactures of machinery for pulp and paper making parts. appellant were clearing the goods by paying duty at the rate of 3% instead of 5% from 10.3.97 to 15.3.97 as they were under the bona fide impression that they were required to pay duty as the rate of 3% only. the rate of duty at 3% was also mentioned in the classification list filed by the them in terms of notification no. 7/97 ce (nt). as soon as the lapses on the part of the appellants were pointed by the officers on a visit to their unit, the appellants paid the different of duty by debiting in pla sl no. 7 dated 19.3.97. this was done before the issue of show cause notice dated 24.7.97.3. shri s kandaswamy. learned consultant for the appellants submitted that since the appellant were under the bona fide belief that duty was required to be paid at 3% and they have also filed classification list mentioning the rate of duty at 3%, their bona fide is established. in any case they have paid the difference of duty immediately on being pointed out by the officers i.e. much before the issue of show cause notice. he further submitted in similar circumstances, the tribunal in a number of cases has been taking the view that imposition of penalty is not called for and he prayed for similar orders setting aside the penalty of rs. 10,000/-.5. i have considered the submissions made before me. i observe that in similar circumstances, where the assessee have paid the duty on coming to know of the short payment of duty, even before the issue of show cause notice, the tribunal has allowed the prayer of the assessee for setting aside the penalty.few such decisions are in the case of amritsar crown caps (p) ltd. vs.cce, reported 2002 (140), elt 437, ashok leyland ltd. vs......

Full Judgment

1. This appeal filed by the appellants is directed against the order in Appeal No. 18/2003 (Cex) SLM dated 31.3.2003 by which the Commissioner has reduced the penalty from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufactures of machinery for pulp and paper making parts. Appellant were clearing the goods by paying duty at the rate of 3% instead of 5% from 10.3.97 to 15.3.97 as they were under the bona fide impression that they were required to pay duty as the rate of 3% only. the rate of duty at 3% was also mentioned in the classification list filed by the them in terms of Notification No. 7/97 CE (NT). As soon as the lapses on the part of the appellants were pointed by the officers on a visit to their unit, the appellants paid the different of duty by debiting in PLA SL No. 7 dated 19.3.97. This was done before the issue of show cause notice dated 24.7.97.

3. Shri S Kandaswamy. learned Consultant for the appellants submitted that since the appellant were under the bona fide belief that duty was required to be paid at 3% and they have also filed classification list mentioning the rate of duty at 3%, their bona fide is established. In any case they have paid the difference of duty immediately on being pointed out by the officers i.e. much before the issue of show cause notice. He further submitted in similar circumstances, the Tribunal in a number of cases has been taking the view that imposition of penalty is not called for and he prayed for similar orders setting aside the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.

5. I have considered the submissions made before me. I observe that in similar circumstances, where the assessee have paid the duty on coming to know of the short payment of duty, even before the issue of show cause notice, the Tribunal has allowed the prayer of the assessee for setting aside the penalty.

Few such decisions are in the case of Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. Vs.

CCE, reported 2002 (140), ELT 437, Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CCE, reported in 2003 (156) ELT 995 and Order No. 1128/2002 of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. GK Alloy Steel Ltd. decided on 24.9.2002. Respectfully following those decisions, I hold that there is no reason for imposing penalty on the appellant and I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tami... Same Parties Techno SpIn Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge R K Jeet