Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A.R.A.S.P.V.P.V.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs A.R.a.S.P.V.P.V.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Aug 20, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46047

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/46047
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Judge: K T P.
Decided On: Aug 20, 2007
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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

A.R.a.S.P.V.P.V.

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)11STR257

Excerpt

.....academy pvt. ltd. v. cce chennai . in the said decision, the tribunal had held that "if the entire amount was paid before the adjudication of the case and if no evidence has been brought out to indicate that the assessee had intent to evade payment of tax, maximum penalty equal to tax imposed by the lower authorities is neither appropriate nor reasonable".2. the subject appeal has been filed by the revenue, to restore the penalty imposed on the respondents by the original authority, on the ground that the statute mandates that penalty under section 76 has to be at least equal to the service tax not paid.3. the id. counsel for the respondents relies on the case law and submits that maximum penalty was not called for, in view of the fact that the respondents had paid the service tax and interest promptly on the default being brought to their notice.4. the id. sdr fairly concedes that there is no finding of an attempt to evade payment of service tax by the respondents in the impugned order.5. i have carefully considered the records of the case and submissions made by both sides. the respondents had paid the tax due along with interest immediately on the default being brought to their notice.there is no finding of an attempt at evasion by the respondents of service tax due from them and paid belatedly. in view of the facts of the case and the ratio of the decision cited, i find that the penalty of rs. 75,000/- imposed on the respondents as per the impugned order is appropriate.

Full Judgment

1. M/s. A.R.A.S.P.V.P.V. Madurai, are engaged in servicing of motor vehicles and are registered for the purpose with registration no.

ST/2/SMV/2001, of Madurai Central Excise Commissionerate. They failed to pay the service tax due of Rs. 7,22,724/- for the services rendered during the period 1-10-01 to 31-3-03. The Deputy Commissioner demanded the service tax not paid interest of Rs. 93,446/- for the delay in payment of the said service tax amount and imposed penalties under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessee paid the dues before the issue of Show Cause Notice. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed by the original authority equal to the service tax not paid in time to Rs. 75,000/-, relying on the observation of the Tribunal, in the case of Inma International Security Academy Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Chennai . In the said decision, the Tribunal had held that "if the entire amount was paid before the adjudication of the case and if no evidence has been brought out to indicate that the assessee had intent to evade payment of tax, maximum penalty equal to tax imposed by the lower authorities is neither appropriate nor reasonable".

2. The subject appeal has been filed by the revenue, to restore the penalty imposed on the respondents by the original authority, on the ground that the statute mandates that penalty under Section 76 has to be at least equal to the Service tax not paid.

3. The Id. Counsel for the respondents relies on the case law and submits that maximum penalty was not called for, in view of the fact that the respondents had paid the service tax and interest promptly on the default being brought to their notice.

4. The Id. SDR fairly concedes that there is no finding of an attempt to evade payment of service tax by the respondents in the impugned order.

5. I have carefully considered the records of the case and submissions made by both sides. The respondents had paid the tax due along with interest immediately on the default being brought to their notice.

There is no finding of an attempt at evasion by the respondents of service tax due from them and paid belatedly. In view of the facts of the case and the ratio of the decision cited, I find that the penalty of Rs. 75,000/- imposed on the respondents as per the impugned order is appropriate.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tami... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs A.R.a.S.P.V.P.V. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K T P.