Security and Personnel Services Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Security and Personnel Services vs Commr. of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 13, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41137

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/41137
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: Dec 13, 2005
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

Security and Personnel Services

Respondent

Commr. of C. Ex.

Excerpt

.....five hundred eighty-six only for the period in dispute. on adjudication of the matter, penalty amounting to rs. 3,00,000/- rupees three lakhs only was imposed under section 76 of the service tax act and rs. 4,000/- rupees four thousand only under section 77 of the service tax act.3. the delay in payment of tax and filing returns is said to be on following reasons: the promoter and the managing director of the appellant company, major s.s. sukhi, has suddenly passed away on 22nd december, 1998. thereafter, the general manager managed the business for some time. subsequently, the son of late major s.s. sukhi, mr. amar sukhi, who was employed elsewhere, joined the company's board. therefore, the delay is said to have caused in setting the things on right motion. the period in dispute is from october, 2000 to march, 2002.4. the ld. counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the confirmed duty has been paid even before issuing show cause notice, hence no penalty could be imposed for the contravention under sections 76 and 77 of the service tax act. to explain the said proposition, he relies upon the following decisions:cce, mangalore v. shree krishna pipe industries cce, mumbai v. top detective & security services pvt. ltd. .further, he also relies upon the decision in the case of rashtriya lspat nigam ltd. v. cce, visakhapatnam , which has been upheld by the supreme court 2004 (163) e.l.t. a53 (s.c.).5. on perusal of the record, it is observed that there exists dispute in between the parties about the quantum of interest payable on the delayed payment of tax. according to the ld. counsel for the appellants, they have rightly calculated the interest amount and paid to the tune of rs. 1,90,586/- rupees one lakh ninety thousand five hundred eighty-six only and whereas the contention of the department is that the interest alone comes to rs. 2,14,764/- rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand seven hundred sixty-four only. the impugned order shows that the said.....

Full Judgment

2. The appellants are a private limited company and are covered by Service Tax as they are dealing in providing security services. There was a delay in payment of Service Tax and as well as filing the Returns quarterly. However, they said to have paid Service Tax amounting to Rs. 17,23,227/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twenty-three Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-seven only) along with interest of Rs. 1,90,586/- Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-six only for the period in dispute. On adjudication of the matter, penalty amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- Rupees Three Lakhs only was imposed under Section 76 of the Service Tax Act and Rs. 4,000/- Rupees Four Thousand only under Section 77 of the Service Tax Act.

3. The delay in payment of tax and filing Returns is said to be on following reasons: The promoter and the Managing Director of the appellant company, Major S.S. Sukhi, has suddenly passed away on 22nd December, 1998.

Thereafter, the General Manager managed the business for some time.

Subsequently, the son of late Major S.S. Sukhi, Mr. Amar Sukhi, who was employed elsewhere, joined the Company's Board. Therefore, the delay is said to have caused in setting the things on right motion.

The period in dispute is from October, 2000 to March, 2002.

4. The ld. Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the confirmed duty has been paid even before issuing Show Cause Notice, hence no penalty could be imposed for the contravention under Sections 76 and 77 of the Service Tax Act. To explain the said proposition, he relies upon the following decisions:CCE, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries CCE, Mumbai v. Top Detective & Security Services Pvt. Ltd. .

Further, he also relies upon the decision in the case of Rashtriya lspat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam , which has been upheld by the Supreme Court 2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (S.C.).

5. On perusal of the record, it is observed that there exists dispute in between the parties about the quantum of interest payable on the delayed payment of tax. According to the ld. Counsel for the appellants, they have rightly calculated the interest amount and paid to the tune of Rs. 1,90,586/- Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-six only and whereas the contention of the Department is that the interest alone comes to Rs. 2,14,764/- Rupees Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-four only. The impugned order shows that the said aspect has not been dealt with properly and concluded by both the authorities below. Therefore, it is felt expedient to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for right calculation of the interest amount payable for the period in default and after arriving at the same, to further consider the case law cited before the Tribunal with regard to the imposition of the Penalty. Therefore, the matter is being remanded on both these counts. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in remand in the above terms and stay application is disposed of while waving the pre-deposit amount.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Security and Personnel Services vs Commr. of C. Ex. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge T Anjaneyulu