K.Pasupathy vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationAppeal No.ST/COD/42354/2014 &
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the demand of service tax and interest has been set aside because the service was retrospectively exempted by a notification issued under Section 97 of the Finance Act, no penalty under Rule 77 can be imposed for the same period, since no tax liability exists on which a penalty for non-payment or contravention can rest.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.146/2013 (M-III) ST dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
K.Pasupathy Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S.Gowri Shankar, Advocate For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of hearing : 09-01-2015 Date of decision : 09-01-2015
FINAL ORDER No.40037/2015
There was a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before Tribunal.
2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that, inadvertently, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) office on 5.2.2014 which is well within the time. Commissioner (Appeals) office returned the file with appeal papers to the appellant vide their letter dt. 10.2.2014. Immediately thereafter, they have filed appeal before Tribunal. He submits that appellant being a contractor is not well versed with the office procedures.
3. Considering the above, the delay of 25 days is condoned. COD application is allowed.
4. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass of imposition of penalty of Rs.5000/- under Rule 77, appeal is taken up for hearing.
5. Ld. Advocate submits that appellant is providing services related to maintenance or repair service of roads for the period 16.6.2005 to 30.9.2008. Appellate authority has already allowed their appeal in so far as the demand of service tax and interest, in view of retrospective amendment under Section 97 vide Notification 24/09 dt. 27.7.2009. However, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed under Section 77. He submits that since there is no liability of tax, question of imposing penalty does not arise.
6. Ld. AR for Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records.
8. By virtue of amendment to Section 97 vide above Notification No.24/2009, repair or maintenance services were retrospectively exempted from levy of tax from 16.6.2005 to July 2009. The lower appellate authority has rightly set aside the demand and interest. In view of that, I do not find any merit in the imposition of penalty on the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) TECHNICAL MEMBER
gs
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