M/S Amin Travels vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal13 July 2015

CitationAppeal No.ST/19/2008-DB

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal upheld the demand of service tax together with interest, having regard to the fact that the appellant had already deposited the entire tax amount. Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside on the ground that the appellant stated, and the adjudication order records, that it was unaware of its service tax liability and had therefore not collected tax from its clients for the period 2003-2004.

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

Judgment

As delivered

In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate TribunalWest Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

Appeal No.ST/19/2008-DB [Arising out of OIA No.COMMR(A)/228/VDR-I/2007, dt.26.11.2007, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara]

M/s Amin Travels Appellant

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara-I Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Advocate For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?

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

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:13.07.2015

Order No. A/10994 / 2015, dt.13.07.2015

Per: P.K. Das

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs.51,424.00 alongwith interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount of tax under Section 78 and penalty under Section 76. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant contested the demand of tax alongwith interest and penalty under the category Rent-a-cab service.

3. The learned Authorised Representative strongly opposed the submission of the learned Advocate. He submits that the activities undertaken by the Appellant would cover under the category Rent-a-cab service.

4. We have noticed that the Appellant has already deposited entire amount of tax. After considering the amount itself, we uphold the demand of Service Tax alongwith interest. It is seen from the Adjudication order that the Appellant has stated that they were not aware of the Service Tax liability and therefore, they have not collected any Service Tax from their clients for the period 2003-2004. So, we set aside the penalty. The appeal filed by the Appellant is disposed of on the above terms.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 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