Suhas Ambadas Bobade Vs. Ccex and Cus.

Suhas Ambadas Bobade vs Ccex and Cus.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 18, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46849

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/46849
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: M Ravindran
Decided On: Jan 18, 2008
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

Suhas Ambadas Bobade

Respondent

Ccex and Cus.

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)10STR373

Excerpt

.....(appeals) while setting aside the penalties imposed under section 77 of the finance act, 1994 held as under: i have carefully examined the records of the case and the submissions made by the assessee. i see in this case the assessee has in fact paid the dues before the issue of the show cause notice and in fact what stands out is that they did so without any communication from the department. i also see that the penalty imposed is under section 77 of the act which is the penalty for contravention of any provisions for which no penalty is given in the act. in a situation like that of shri suhas ambadad bobade, where the assessee is coming up voluntarily to pay the amount, it would be against the stated vision of the department to promote voluntarily compliance to penalize such an assessee. a small time assessee, who on watching advertisements for service tax payments on television, comes on his own should be encouraged and not penalized. i therefore set aside the penalty of rs. 1200/-and accept the appeal of the party.it can be seen from the above reproduced order that the commissioner (appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed under section 77 of the finance act, 1994 and accepted the appeal of the appellant, but she has not recorded any finding on the penalty imposed under section 76 of the finance act, 1994. i find that the commissioner (appeals) on the facts of the case has come to conclusion that the appellant is a small time assessee and has come forward to deposit voluntarily the entire amount of service tax and interest thereon. i find that this is a fit case for waiver of penalty under section 76 of the finance act, 1994. i find that the hon'ble high court of bombay in civil appeal no. 197 of 2006 in an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of tribunal, has upheld the order, that provisions of section 80 can be invokable to set aside penalty under section 76. respectfully following the said judgment of the hon'ble high court, penalties.....

Full Judgment

1. This stay application is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.GOA/CEX/MP/82/2007 dated 17.8.2007. The Commissioner (Appeals), while allowing the appeal against the order-in-original, has upheld the penalty under Section 76 and set aside the penalty under Section 77.

She has not recorded any findings on the penalty under Section 76.

2. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay application, I find that the issue involved in this case is already settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Hence, after granting the stay, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 held as under: I have carefully examined the records of the case and the submissions made by the assessee. I see in this case the assessee has in fact paid the dues before the issue of the show cause notice and in fact what stands out is that they did so without any communication from the department. I also see that the penalty imposed is under Section 77 of the Act which is the penalty for contravention of any provisions for which no penalty is given in the Act. In a situation like that of Shri Suhas Ambadad Bobade, where the assessee is coming up voluntarily to pay the amount, it would be against the stated vision of the department to promote voluntarily compliance to penalize such an assessee. A small time assessee, who on watching advertisements for Service Tax payments on television, comes on his own should be encouraged and not penalized. I therefore set aside the penalty of Rs. 1200/-and accept the appeal of the party.

It can be seen from the above reproduced order that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and accepted the appeal of the appellant, but she has not recorded any finding on the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) on the facts of the case has come to conclusion that the appellant is a small time assessee and has come forward to deposit voluntarily the entire amount of service tax and interest thereon. I find that this is a fit case for waiver of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2006 in an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Tribunal, has upheld the order, that provisions of Section 80 can be invokable to set aside penalty under Section 76. Respectfully following the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, penalties imposed on the appellant is set aside.

As such, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed as indicated hereinabove.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Suhas Ambadas Bobade vs Ccex and Cus. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge M Ravindran