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.

Gopsons Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Gopsons Papers Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 21, 2006
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/44147

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 Delhi
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

Gopsons Papers Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In
(2007)8STT199

Excerpt

1. the appellant challenges the order of the commissioner (appeals) upholding the order-in-original, by which the appellant was ordered to pay a penalty of rs. 51,481/- under section 76 of chapter v of finance act, 1994 and a penally of rs. 1,000/ under section 77 of the said act.2. the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out from the government of india, central board of excise & customs letter dated 17-12-2004 thai in para 5.6, it was provided that "in case of omission in payment of service tax or procedural lapse by persons liable to pay service tax on the goods transported by road, committed before 31st december, 2005, the consequences should be limited to recovery of tax with interest, payable thereon. no penalty should be imposed on such defaulters unless the default is on account of deliberate fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement or contraventions of the provisions of service tax with intent to evade payment of service tax". there is no finding against the applicant that the default was on account of deliberate fraud, collusion, etc.therefore, prima facie, imposition of penalty for the period in question, which was from 1-1-05 to 31-3-05 was not justified. it is, therefore, directed that there shall be interim stay of the impugned order and recovery of penalty during the pendency of this appeal without any pre-deposit.this application is disposed of accordingly. the appeal will now come up for final hearing in its due course.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original, by which the appellant was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 51,481/- under section 76 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 and a penally of Rs. 1,000/ under section 77 of the said Act.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out from the Government of India, Central Board of Excise & Customs letter dated 17-12-2004 thai in Para 5.6, it was provided that "in case of omission in payment of service tax or procedural lapse by persons liable to pay service tax on the goods transported by road, committed before 31st December, 2005, the consequences should be limited to recovery of tax with interest, payable thereon. No penalty should be imposed on such defaulters unless the default is on account of deliberate fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement or contraventions of the provisions of service tax with intent to evade payment of service tax". There is no finding against the applicant that the default was on account of deliberate fraud, collusion, etc.

Therefore, prima facie, imposition of penalty for the period in question, which was from 1-1-05 to 31-3-05 was not justified. It is, therefore, directed that there shall be interim stay of the impugned order and recovery of penalty during the pendency of this appeal without any pre-deposit.

This application is disposed of accordingly. The appeal will now come up for final hearing in its due course.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial