M/S. Heavy Engineering Workshop vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. BPL-Excus-000-APP-317-13-14 dated 20.3.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal (MP) ]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Heavy Engineering Workshop Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

& ST, Bhopal

Appearance:

Ms. Maheshwari, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri V P Batra, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 3.2.2015

FINAL ORDER NOS. A/ 50351/2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposition of penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The facts of the case are that on their own detection by the appellant, service tax was paid although with delay along with interest. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to appropriate the amount paid by the appellant and for imposition of penalty. Adjudication took place, penalty was imposed under section 76 for delayed payment of service tax which was confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, appellant is before me.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, the appellant on their own detection, paid the service tax along with interest, therefore as per section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, show cause notice was required to be set aside. In these circumstances, penalty is not imposable.

4. On the other hand, learned AR supports the impugned order.

5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

6. Admittedly in this case, the appellant has paid the service tax along with interest in their own detection. In these circumstances, show cause notice was not required to be issued as per the provisions of Rule 73(3) of the Act. But without application of mind, the show cause notice was issued and thereafter the same was adjudicated and penalty was also confirmed against the appellant. This shows the arrogance of the official for imposing penalty on the appellant. As discussed above, that the show cause notice was not required to be issued to the appellant. Therefore, I set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant by allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

(dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

3