Cce Vs. M.P. Electro Craft

Cce vs M.P. Electro Craft

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 30, 2007

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46100

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/46100
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Das
Decided On: Aug 30, 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

Cce

Respondent

M.P. Electro Craft

Excerpt

1. the revenue filed this appeal against the unpuged order. wherein the commissioner (appeals) set aside the penalty under section 76 and 77 of the finance act, 1998. the ld. dr on behalf of the revenue submits that the commissioner (appeals) set aside the penalty on the basis of amendment in the amnesty scheme, but the present case is related to march, 2006, he submits that the amnesty scheme is not applicable herein.2. after hearing the ld. dr and on perusal of the records, it is seen that delay in submission of return was caused due to uncertainity and confusion and the delay was not deliberate but due to prevailing confusion. this finding is not challenged by the revenue in their grounds of appeal. the tribunal in the case of commissioner of central excise, kolkata v. malancha photographer 2006 (1) sir 101 (tribunal-calcutta) held that penalty under section 76 and 77 of the finance act, 1994 are not mandatory. thus, there is no dispute on the delay in filing of return and payment of tax was due to confusion of the respondent.3. therefore, i do not find, any merit in the appeal of the revenue.accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the unpuged order. Wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1998. The ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty on the basis of amendment in the Amnesty Scheme, but the present case is related to March, 2006, He submits that the Amnesty Scheme is not applicable herein.

2. After hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the records, it is seen that delay in submission of Return was caused due to uncertainity and confusion and the delay was not deliberate but due to prevailing confusion. This finding is not challenged by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata v. Malancha Photographer 2006 (1) SIR 101 (Tribunal-Calcutta) held that penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 are not mandatory. Thus, there is no dispute on the delay in filing of return and payment of tax was due to confusion of the respondent.

3. Therefore, I do not find, any merit in the appeal of the Revenue.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs M.P. Electro Craft Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Das