Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Air Express Courier Services

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Air Express Courier Services

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 24, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36602

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/36602
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A M Moheb
Decided On: Sep 24, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Air Express Courier Services

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(182)ELT409Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. this appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the commissioner (appeals). in the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals) relied on the decision in the case of sajjan kumar kariwala v. cce, allahabad [2003 (159) e.l.t. 1131 (tri.) = 1997 (20) rlt 885] and two other decisions reported in 2001 (131) e.l.t. 274 (tri.) = 2001 (43) rlt 51 (t) and 1999 (105) e.l.t. 434 (t) and held that non-filing of returns in time is only a procedural lapse and, therefore, penalty is not warranted for such a lapse. the case of the department is not that the respondent failed to discharge the service tax liability. the only lapse is delayed filing of return. following the ratio of the decision in the case of r.b. bahutule v. cce, mumbai [2004 (166) e.l.t.233] the appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision in the case of Sajjan Kumar Kariwala v. CCE, Allahabad [2003 (159) E.L.T. 1131 (Tri.) = 1997 (20) RLT 885] and two other decisions reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 274 (Tri.) = 2001 (43) RLT 51 (T) and 1999 (105) E.L.T. 434 (T) and held that non-filing of returns in time is only a procedural lapse and, therefore, penalty is not warranted for such a lapse. The case of the department is not that the respondent failed to discharge the service tax liability. The only lapse is delayed filing of return. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of R.B. Bahutule v. CCE, Mumbai [2004 (166) E.L.T.233] the appeal is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Air Express Courier Services Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge A M Moheb