SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/44259 |
Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu |
Decided On | Dec-01-2006 |
Judge | P Chacko |
Reported in | (2007)9STJ26CESTAT(Chennai) |
Appellant | Sri Venkatalakshmi Spinners (P) |
Respondent | Commr. of C. Ex. |
2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, I note that the appellants are not challenging the demand of tax but they have a grievance against the demand of interest and penalty. Learned Consultant reiterates this grievance and submits that, on the facts of the case, the demand of interest and penalty cannot be sustained. This claim is opposed by learned SDR.3. It appears from the records that the return was filed within the period prescribed under Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994. Cases in which service tax return had not been filed before the date on which Section 71A came into force by recipients of GTO service and C & F Agents' service for the aforesaid period were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India and the assessees, who had not paid service tax for the said period within the time limit prescribed under Section 71A ibid were given a final chance to pay up the tax dues within an extended period. Their Lordships also made it clear that such assessees paying tax within the time granted by the Court would not be liable to pay interest or penalty. This benefit is certainly available to the appellants in the present appeal inasmuch as they had filed return and paid tax for the above period within the time prescribed in the statute itself.
4. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.