M/S. Private Eye (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai
- CitationAppeal No. 87/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the assessee does not contest tax or interest and the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is the only remaining question, the authority may invoke Section 80 of that Act to grant exoneration from penalty where the default arose from erroneous accounting, the tax and interest having been subsequently discharged, and no mala fides or intention to evade tax is shown on the record.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 87/2014 (MST) dated 26.2.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Private Eye (P) Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Respondent
Appearance
Shri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 03.03.2015
Final Order No. 40194 / 2015
Learned counsel submits that he shall file the vakalat for record. But under instruction he is appearing filing a memo today.
2. It is further submission of learned counsel that neither tax nor interest is in dispute. The appellant chooses not to litigate the matter with the Department and prays for exoneration from penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Para 8 of the appellate order reveals that the authority had occasion to consider the case of the appellant under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. But the reason stated before him was not acceptable to him. Learned counsel explains that due to erroneous accounting the appellant could not discharge the liability duly but when it came to its notice that it defaulted for sometime it discharged its tax liability with interest. There was no malafide on the part of the appellant to intentionally evade the tax liability.
4. Averment of the appellant appears to be reasonable for which learned Commissioner (Appeals) would have invoked section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 to grant appropriate relief of exoneration from penalty imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
5. Considering the difficulties expressed and also appreciating that no malafide has come to record, both stay application and appeal are allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member
Rex
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