M/S. Prompt Credit Business vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CMB-CEX-000-APP-139-13, dated 28.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore]

M/s. PROMPT CREDIT BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES APPELLANT

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (SERVICE TAX), COIMBATORE RESPONDENT

Appearance:

For the Appellant Ms. D. Naveena, [No vakalat on file] Adv.

For the Respondent Shri L. Paneerselvan, AC (AR)

CORAM:

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

Date of hearing/decision 22-09-2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 41266 / 2015

Learned counsel submits that the service tax liability recoverable from the recovery agent is not at all in dispute. When the appellant came to know that legally it is liable to pay service tax, it has discharged the tax liability. But total liability was discharged before adjudication was completed. Although, minor part of tax due was discharged before show-cause notice, major part of that was also paid within 30 days of the issue of show-cause notice. Appellant has also voluntarily paid the interest. None of the authorities have recorded any contumacious conduct of the appellant to impose penalty. Without considering the case under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, penalty was levied.

2. Revenue supports adjudication.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. There is no dispute about the good conduct of the assessee, who has come forward to discharge the tax liability belatedly with interest. The authorities did not find willfull suppression of tax liability. Therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 is unwarranted. Consequently, appeal is allowed confirming tax liability. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

ksr 26-09-2015

DRAFT Remarks

I II III

Date of dictation 22.09.2015

Draft Order - Date of typing 25.09.2015

Fair Order Typing 26.09.2015

Date of number and date of dispatch 28.09.2015

2 ST/41604/2013