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.

Pushpak Courier Vs. Cce

Pushpak Courier vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 22, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/44922

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

Pushpak Courier

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2007)9STJ197CESTATNew(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of service tax and penalties of the equal amount were imposed.2. the contention of the appellant is that due to illness of the father of the assessee of the proprietor, the service tax due for the period november 2003 to june 2004 was not paid and subsequently on 30.10.04 the same was paid along with interest even prior to show-cause notice.the contention is that government floated amnesty scheme which was up to 30th october, 2004 which provides that service provider who was registered and paid service tax along with interest with the revenue got himself registered with the revenue and deposited the service tax along with interest prior to 30.10.04 is not liable for any penalty.the contention is that as the appellant paid the amount of service tax along with interest prior to 30.10.04 they are not liable for any penalty.3. the contention of the revenue is that it is not the case of the appellant that they got themselves registered during this amnesty scheme. the contention is that the appellants were earlier registered with the revenue authority and were paying the service tax but the service tax was not paid from november 2003 to june 2004, in these circumstances the appellants are liable for penalty.4. i find in this case the appellants are registered with the revenue authorities prior to amnesty scheme and were paying service tax, for the short period, the tax was not paid, therefore, i find that amnesty scheme is not applicable to the facts of the present case, therefore, the appellants are liable for penalty. however, taking into the facts and circumstances of the case and amount of service tax consolidated penalty of rs. 25,000/- will meet the ends of justice otherwise the impugned order is upheld. the appeal is disposed or as indicated above.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of Service Tax and penalties of the equal amount were imposed.

2. The contention of the appellant is that due to illness of the father of the assessee of the proprietor, the Service Tax due for the period November 2003 to June 2004 was not paid and subsequently on 30.10.04 the same was paid along with interest even prior to show-cause notice.

The contention is that Government floated Amnesty Scheme which was up to 30th October, 2004 which provides that service provider who was registered and paid service tax along with Interest with the Revenue got himself registered with the Revenue and deposited the Service Tax along with interest prior to 30.10.04 is not liable for any penalty.

The contention is that as the appellant paid the amount of Service Tax along with interest prior to 30.10.04 they are not liable for any penalty.

3. The contention of the Revenue is that it is not the case of the appellant that they got themselves registered during this Amnesty Scheme. The contention is that the appellants were earlier registered with the Revenue authority and were paying the Service Tax but the Service Tax was not paid from November 2003 to June 2004, in these circumstances the appellants are liable for penalty.

4. I find in this case the appellants are registered with the Revenue authorities prior to Amnesty Scheme and were paying Service Tax, for the short period, the tax was not paid, therefore, I find that Amnesty Scheme is not applicable to the facts of the present case, therefore, the appellants are liable for penalty. However, taking into the facts and circumstances of the case and amount of Service Tax consolidated penalty of Rs. 25,000/- will meet the ends of justice otherwise the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is disposed or as indicated above.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial