Compagnie Generale De Geophysique vs Commissioner Of Service Tax

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

COURT No. I

APPEAL No.ST/190/09

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.01/STC/BR/2009-10 dated 13/05/2009 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, 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? ========================================

Compagnie Generale de Geophysique Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Respondent Mumbai

Appearance:

Shri.Tarun Jain, Advocate for appellant Shri.K.S.Mishra, Addl. Comm. (AR) for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 12/02/2015 Date of Decision : 12/02/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.01/STC/BR/2009-10 dated 13/05/2009 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on the appellant under the category of surface and sub-service surveying in relation to location and exploration of deposits of oil and gas to M/s.ONGC Ltd. It transpires from the records that the appellant was issued a show-cause notice dated 12/06/2008. Wherein it is recorded that as pointed out by the Central Excise officers, the appellant discharged/deposited the entire amount of service tax liability almost two years prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice. These findings are also recorded by the adjudicating authority in his order-in-original. It is also noted that appellant is not contesting the issue on merits. On 28/01/2015 when the matter was listed for disposal, we specifically asked the learned Counsel about the discharge of interest liability on the amounts confirmed as service tax liability. It was pointed out to us that they have already paid the interest of Rs.2,50,131/- which has been appropriated. We directed learned DR to confirm whether the interest which has been calculated and paid is correct or otherwise; as we found prima facie, the interest liability could be more. In response to such query, time was sought by the learned DR to check up with the Commissionerate. Till today, no reply has been filed by the learned DR, he stated that they have not yet received any intimation/information from the department.

4. Today, the learned Counsel produced before us a calculation sheet wherein the interest liability has been worked out as Rs.5,50,117/- and reducing the amount of interest already paid on 27/03/2005 i.e. Rs.2,50,131/-, differential interest of Rs.2,99,986/- was paid by the appellant on 10/02/2015, evidencing the same by a Challan which is annexed in the information sent by them to the Superintendent of Service Tax, Navi Mumbai.

5. We find that the appellant has discharged the interest also along with service tax liability. In our considered view the issue of service tax liability on the survey and exploration was in the period when there was no clarity as to the taxability of work done for ONGC. We agree with the learned Counsels submissions that having discharged the entire service tax liability and the interest thereof, the penalty need not be imposed on appellant. We hold that the appellant has made out a justifiable cause for invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Invoking the said section 80, we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under the impugned order and allow the appeal to that extent.

6. Appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

pj

1 4