Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M. Madhusudhan

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02-2012 dated 27/01/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals) Hyderabad ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)

Versus

M. MADHUSUDHAN 96, PHASE-I, POTHIREDDYPALLI, SANGAREDDY, MEDAK DIST, AP Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Ajay Saxena, A.R. For the Appellant

None For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 14/09/2015

Date of Decision: 14/09/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21934 / 2015

Per : ASHOK K. ARYA

Matter concerns with the provision of giving benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act to the assessee namely Mr. M. Madhusudhan, Proprietor, Manasaa Contractor, wherein it inter alia says that Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76, section 77 or section 78, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.

2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Hyderabad-I has appealed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the respondent has been given the benefit of Provision of Section 80 withdrawing the penalty imposed earlier by the original adjudication order. The Department is arguing that the said order-in-appeal dated 27.01.2012 has to be set aside and penalties are to be imposed again and recovered from the respondent.

3. The Commissioner learned (A.R.), Mr. Ajay Saxena appearing for the appellant namely Commissioner of Central Excise has been heard. He says that penalty is definitely imposable though the respondent is semi-literate, cannot understand English and knows only Telugu and being completely ignorant of the statutory provisions.

4. After having examined the facts, I find that bonafides of the respondent are not in doubt. Had he been informed and known about the law, he was always willing to pay the liability of service tax; as soon as he came to know about his liability, he made the payment. The facts on records go in favour of the respondents and this is a situation where provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act 1994 would be applicable. There is no proper justification and substance in the appeal of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is hereby rejected and matter disposed of accordingly.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK K. ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER

pnr

2