M/S. A.S. Rajapann & Others (Huf) vs Cce, Tirunelveli
- CitationAppeal No.228
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the assessee has discharged the service tax liability together with interest within the six-month period allowed by the proviso introduced to section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Finance Act, 2012, and the discharge is undisputed, the assessee is entitled to consideration of waiver of penalty under section 80 of that Act, and penalties imposed under sections 76, 77 and 78 may be waived on that basis where the assessee has also sought registration and the department has not yet issued permanent registration.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.228 & 229/2013 dated 30.9.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai)
M/s. A.S. Rajapann & Others (HUF) M/s. A.S. Rajapann & Others (Ind.) Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Tirunelveli Respondent
Appearance
Shri M. Kannan, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 05.03.2015
Final Order No. 40187-40188 / 2015
Learned counsel submits that in all the three appeals, when the liability of the appellant under renting of immovable property arose, the appellant following the mandate of the Finance Act, 2012 discharged its liability within six months of the assent of the President to the Bill. Sub-section (2) was introduced to Section 80 with effect from 28.5.2012. But appellant discharged liability on 28.11.2012. That remains undisputed by both sides.
2. He further submits that the genuine hardship cases are covered for exoneration of penalty under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Conduct of the assessee shows that it has discharged the tax liability with interest which remains uncontroverted and the appellant also sought temporary registration. Department has not yet issued permanent registration.
4. Revenue confirms discharge of liability to the extent of service tax and interest and also the averment of grant of temporary registration to appellant.
5. Considering the difficulties emerging from section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, appellant deserves consideration under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, penalties imposed under sections 76, 77 and 78 are waived and appeals allowed as well as stay applications disposed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member
Rex
2
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