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.

NitIn S. Bhalerao Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

NitIn S. Bhalerao vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 20, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/45126

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

NitIn S. Bhalerao

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2007)(120)ECC342

Excerpt

1. after dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty, i take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.2. the original adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax of rs. 56,145/- along with interest of rs. 35,766/- against the appellant, who is an architect, for the period october 1998 to march 2003. the said tax along with interest stand paid by the appellant. in addition he imposed personal penalty of rs. 2,000/- under section 76 of the finance act, 1994. the said order of the asst. commissioner was reviewed by the commissioner, who vide his impugned order enhanced the penalty of rs. 2,000/- equivalent to service tax amount.3. the ld. advocate appearing for the appellant relied upon the extra ordinary tax payer friendly scheme, i.e. if an architect himself get registered by 31.10.2004 and pay service tax with interest, no penalty would be imposed upon him. the said scheme was taken note by the tribunal in the case of cce bhopal v. bharat security services and worker cont. , wherein it was held that payment of service tax along with interest before the cut off date would not have any penal action against the assessee. inasmuch as; the duty and the interest have admittedly been paid before 31^st october 2004, the enhancement of penalty by commissioner was not justified.4. accordingly, i set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by restoring order-in-original passed by the commissioner. stay petition also gets disposed of.

Full Judgment

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty, I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.

2. The Original adjudicating authority confirmed the Service Tax of Rs. 56,145/- along with interest of Rs. 35,766/- against the appellant, who is an Architect, for the period October 1998 to March 2003. The said tax along with interest stand paid by the appellant. In addition he imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said Order of the Asst. Commissioner was reviewed by the Commissioner, who vide his impugned Order enhanced the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- equivalent to Service Tax amount.

3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant relied upon the Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme, i.e. if an Architect himself get registered by 31.10.2004 and pay Service Tax with interest, no penalty would be imposed upon him. The said scheme was taken note by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services and Worker Cont. , wherein it was held that payment of Service Tax along with interest before the cut off date would not have any penal action against the assessee. Inasmuch as; the duty and the interest have admittedly been paid before 31^st October 2004, the enhancement of penalty by Commissioner was not justified.

4. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by restoring Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner. Stay petition also gets disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial