Commissioner of C.E. Vs. R.K. Swamy B.B.D.O. Advertising - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the revenue is in appeal against the order of the commissioner of central excise (appeals), mumbai who has held that the assessees were liable to be charged interest on delayed payment only for the period from april to september, 1999 when there was delay in payment of service tax and upheld interest only for that period, setting aside the liability to interest for the period january, 1999 to march, 1999 which was covered by the stay order passed by the hon'ble madras high court dated 3-2-99 in writ petition no. 1545/99.2. we have hard the ld. jdr and perused the records - none appears for the respondents in spite of notice. the payment of service tax was stayed on 3-2-1999 and vacated on 20-12-2000. service tax for the period from january, 1999 to march, 1999 was covered by the stay, but even before the stay was vacated service tax for this period was paid - date of payment was 18-1-2000. the nonpayment of service tax was not due to delay on the part of the assessee but only due to their being protected by the high court order. hence, the commissioner (appeals) has rightly held that the assessees were not liable to interest for the period january to march, 1992.3. reliance placed by the revenue on the judgment of the hon'ble bombay high court in the case of all india federation of tax practitioners in w.p. no. 142 of 1999 - judgment dated 22-2-2001, wherein, the court directed that if the members of the association comply with the requisite formalities prescribed by or under the statute and pay the arrears of service tax on or before a particular date together with interest, the respondents shall not take any penal action, does not advance the revenue's case.4. in the light of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and dismiss the appeal.

Judgment:
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai who has held that the assessees were liable to be charged interest on delayed payment only for the period from April to September, 1999 when there was delay in payment of Service tax and upheld interest only for that period, setting aside the liability to interest for the period January, 1999 to March, 1999 which was covered by the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 3-2-99 in Writ Petition No. 1545/99.

2. We have hard the ld. JDR and perused the records - none appears for the respondents in spite of notice. The payment of Service tax was stayed on 3-2-1999 and vacated on 20-12-2000. Service tax for the period from January, 1999 to March, 1999 was covered by the stay, but even before the stay was vacated service tax for this period was paid - date of payment was 18-1-2000. The nonpayment of service tax was not due to delay on the part of the assessee but only due to their being protected by the High Court order. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the assessees were not liable to interest for the period January to March, 1992.

3. Reliance placed by the Revenue on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners in W.P. No. 142 of 1999 - judgment dated 22-2-2001, wherein, the Court directed that if the Members of the Association comply with the requisite formalities prescribed by or under the statute and pay the arrears of service tax on or before a particular date together with interest, the respondents shall not take any penal action, does not advance the Revenue's case.

4. In the light of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and dismiss the appeal.