Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Ravikiran Industries

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal4 June 2015

CitationAppeal No. ST/286/10

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an assessee has discharged the service tax liability with interest and does not contest it on merits, the demand is confirmed to that extent and the first appellate order setting it aside is set aside accordingly. Where the assessee's eligibility for a small-scale exemption was a genuinely confusing question, and the assessee has shown a justifiable cause before the lower authorities and the Tribunal, the Tribunal will invoke Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 to decline the imposition of penalties, and the first appellate authority's setting aside of penalties on that basis is upheld.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

Appeal No. ST/286/10

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PII/PAP/39/2010 dated 26.02.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune II)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Appellant Vs.

Ravikiran Industries Respondent

Appearance:

Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asst. Commr (AR) for appellant Shri Makrand Joshi, Advocate for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 04.06.2015 Date of Decision: 04.06.2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/PAP/39/2010 dated 26.02.2010.

2. When the matter was called out, learned D.R. submits that Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in which he has held that the respondent is eligible to avail SSI exemption and coming to such a conclusion, he set aside the order-in-original which is incorrect.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent at the outset submits that they have already discharged the entire service tax liability along with interest and are not contesting the issue on merits. It is his submission that the impugned order to that extent of setting aside the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority be upheld.

4. After hearing both sides, in view of the concession given by the learned Advocate, we find that the demand of service tax liability of Rs.7,63,759/- along with interest needs to be confirmed. To that extent, the impugned order of the first appellate authority is set aside. As regards the penalties, we find that the issue is regarding the eligibility to avail small scale services prevail exemption which could have caused the confusion in the minds of the respondent herein. We find that this is a fit case to invoke Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 which is correct as held by the first appellate authority, though not in so many words. We hold that the penalties set aside by the first appellate authority are correct and that portion of the order does not require any interference as we find that the respondent has made out a justifiable cause before the lower authorities as well as before us for non-imposition of penalties.

5. The appeal is disposed of as indicated herein above.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

nsk

1 3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free