M/S Bharat Cam Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-SVTAX-000-APP-0002-14-15 dated 02-01-2015 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Pune)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

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

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?

====================================================== M/s Bharat Cam Industries Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Respondent

Appearance:

Shri M.A. Nyallkalkar, Advocate for Appellant Shri P.V. Sekhar, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing : 11/09/2015 Date of Decision : 11/09/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This matter is listed for the maintainability as the amount involved in this case is less than two lakhs.

2. After hearing both sides and perusal of records, I find that the issue being question of penalty, appeal is admitted and being in narrow compass, I take up the appeal for disposal.

3. After hearing both sides I find that the issue involved in this case that regarding the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 78 of the Finance Act 1994, as also penalty under section 77 of the Finance Act 1994.

4. I find from the records that the appellant had admitted the service tax liability and accordingly, discharged the same along with the interest before the issuance of show cause notice. It is also seem from the records that the appellant had discharged the 25% of penalty imposed under section 78 as per the provisions of said section. The appellant is contesting the imposition of penalty under section 77, 78 and also section 70.

5. In my considered view penalties imposed under section 70 read with rule 7C of the service tax rules cannot be waived any conditions. Accordingly, the penalties imposed under section 70 is upheld and appeal to that extent is rejected.

6. As regards, penalties imposed under section 77, I find that said penalty imposed for non-obtaining of the S.T. registration. This set penalty is also upheld.

7. As regards penalties imposed under section 78, I find that the appellant has discharged 25% of penalty as per section 78. In the facts and circumstances of this case I find nothing in records to invoke provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act 1994 for setting aside the penalty. In any case 25% of penalty is discharged by the appellant as per the provisions of section 78 of the Finance Act 1994, accordingly balance penalty imposed under section 78 need not be recovered.

8. The appeal is disposed of.

(Pronounced in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

akp 1 3 APPEAL No. ST/85409/15-Mum