Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Hi-tech Calibration Centre Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Hi-tech Calibration Centre vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Jul 14, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39717

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Judge
Decided On
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

Hi-tech Calibration Centre

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Excerpt

1. the appellants are engaged in providing the taxable service of testing and calibration of measuring equipments. they defaulted payment of service tax for the period april 2002 to september 2003. for this default, the lower authorities have imposed penalty of rs. 48,997/- on them under section 76 of the finance act, 1994. the authorities have also imposed penalty of rs. 1000/- under section 77 of the said act for the delay in filing service tax returns for the above period. hence the present appeal.2. after hearing both sides, i find that the appellants seek leniency as to the quanta of the penalties. their consultant has also claimed relief under section 80 of the act ibid. learned sdr reiterates the findings of the commissioner (appeals). appellants have no case that, either under section 76 or under section 77 of the finance act, 1994, the authorities have imposed penalty exceeding the maximum limit. their only case is that the delay in payment of service tax and in filing the returns was on account of the fact that they were not aware of the penal consequences. in other words, the only reason for the defaults is ignorance of law, which cannot be accepted as a "reasonable cause" within the meaning of this expression used under section 80 ibid, which reads as under : penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. - notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76, section 77, section 78 or section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.appellants are not eligible for the benefit of section 80.consequently, the penalties imposed on them under sections 76 and 77 get sustained. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants are engaged in providing the taxable service of testing and calibration of measuring equipments. They defaulted payment of Service Tax for the period April 2002 to September 2003. For this default, the lower authorities have imposed penalty of Rs. 48,997/- on them under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The authorities have also imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the said Act for the delay in filing Service Tax returns for the above period. Hence the present appeal.

2. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellants seek leniency as to the quanta of the penalties. Their Consultant has also claimed relief under Section 80 of the Act ibid. Learned SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Appellants have no case that, either under Section 76 or under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, the authorities have imposed penalty exceeding the maximum limit. Their only case is that the delay in payment of Service Tax and in filing the returns was on account of the fact that they were not aware of the penal consequences. In other words, the only reason for the defaults is ignorance of law, which cannot be accepted as a "reasonable cause" within the meaning of this expression used under Section 80 ibid, which reads as under : Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77, Section 78 or Section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.

Appellants are not eligible for the benefit of Section 80.

Consequently, the penalties imposed on them under Sections 76 and 77 get sustained. The appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial