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.

Star Cable Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Star Cable vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 25, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/45412

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

Star Cable

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2007)11STJ164CESTATNew(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the stay application has challenged the revisional order of the commissioner, by which he had enhanced the penalty of rs. 100/-imposed by the asstt commissioner under section 76 of the finance act, 1994 to rs. 100/- per day subject to maximum amount of rs. 48,010/-, which was the service tax payable.2. it appears that the commissioner has over-looked the provisions of section 80 giving discretion to the adjudicating authority while imposing the penalty. it is also evident from the order of the assistant commissioner that he had taken a lenient view against the noticee by exercising discretion given to him under section 80. in this context, the hon'ble high court of karnataka has held, in cce, bangalore v. sunitha shetty reported in 2004 (174) elt 313 (kar), that the deputy commissioner who exercised discretion conferred on him under section 80 of the act and not on an interpretation of section 76 which mandated levy of penalty of rs. 100/- per day for each day of the delay. the applicant has, therefore, made out a prima facie case for granting interim stay of the impugned order with waiver of pre-deposit.pre-deposit of penalty as ordered under the impugned order is, therefore, waived during the pendency of appeal.this application is accordingly, allowed. the appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course.

Full Judgment

1. The stay application has challenged the revisional order of the Commissioner, by which he had enhanced the penalty of Rs. 100/-imposed by the Asstt Commissioner under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 to Rs. 100/- per day subject to maximum amount of Rs. 48,010/-, which was the service tax payable.

2. It appears that the Commissioner has over-looked the provisions of Section 80 giving discretion to the adjudicating authority while imposing the penalty. It is also evident from the order of the Assistant Commissioner that he had taken a lenient view against the noticee by exercising discretion given to him under Section 80. In this context, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held, in CCE, Bangalore v. Sunitha Shetty reported in 2004 (174) ELT 313 (Kar), that the Deputy Commissioner who exercised discretion conferred on him under Section 80 of the Act and not on an interpretation of Section 76 which mandated levy of penalty of Rs. 100/- per day for each day of the delay. The applicant has, therefore, made out a prima facie case for granting interim stay of the impugned order with waiver of pre-deposit.

Pre-deposit of penalty as ordered under the impugned order is, therefore, waived during the pendency of appeal.

This application is accordingly, allowed. The appeal will 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