M/S. Karur Kcp Packings Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.97/2009 (P), dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the tax element is not disputed and the delay in discharging the liability arose from genuine confusion about the taxability of a newly introduced levy, a penalty for the resulting delay may be waived under the spirit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the reasonable cause for the default being accepted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.97/2009 (P), dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
M/s. KARUR KCP PACKINGS LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Ms. Minchu, Adv. [No vakalat on file] for M/s. V.M.J. Associates
For the Respondent Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honbe Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of hearing/decision 08-04-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 40411 / 2015
Per D.N. Panda:
Learned counsel submits that when the taxability was in doubt and under confusion appellant could not ascertain the same to discharge. However, upon legal advice, it worked out its the service tax liability precisely and discharged the same. That is not under dispute. The only dispute in this appeal is on penalty which arose due to the above difficulty. That being a reasonable cause and prevented the appellant to discharge the tax liability, it faced penal consequence under law. Therefore, there may not be harsh measure of penalty against the appellant, who has discharged.
2. Revenue supports adjudication.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. The arguments advanced by learned counsel convinces to appreciate that there was introduction of levy with confusion. Such confusion certainly causes delay in discharge of the tax liability. The appellant not having disputed the tax element, penalty imposed on it is waived in accordance with the spirit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994and appeal is allowed to that extent.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 13-04-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 08.04.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 11.04.2015
Fair Order Typing .04.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
4 ST/00081/2010
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