M/S Paragon Advertising vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationAppeal No. : ST/158/2008
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994 for the non-payment of service tax are set aside where the assessee, having already paid the tax and interest and not contesting the demand, has shown a bona fide belief of non-liability, and the Tribunal is satisfied that it is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, which excuses penalty where the failure is due to reasonable cause.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of OIA-COMMR-A-/77/VDR-I/2008 dtd 18/6/2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS (Appeals) -VADODARA-I ]
M/s Paragon Advertising - Appellant(s)
Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS (Appeals) -VADODARA-I - Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Assessee : Shri Suhas D Phadke, Consultant. For Revenue : Shri T K Sikdar, Authorised Representative.
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 24/9/2015
ORDER No. A/11373 / 2015 dtd 24/9/2015
Per : Mr.P.K. Das,
The Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant fairly submits that they are not contesting the demand of tax of Rs 69,220/- alongwith interest which they have already paid. They filed the appeal against imposition of penalty. It is submitted that the appellant is a small entrepreneur of Advertising Agency. They were under the impression that they are not liable to pay the tax. He further submits that the levy of tax on the Advertising Agency prior to 2004 is arguable.
2. After considering the submissions of both the sides and the amount involved of tax alongwith interest have already been paid by the appellant which they are not contesting. We find that it is a fit case to invoke the Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence, the demand of tax alongwith interest is upheld and the penalties are set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami ??
??
??
??
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