M/S. Srf Limited vs Cce, Trichy
- Case No.Appeal No. ST/42402/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an assessee was already registered for a service and has in fact discharged the tax liability on a further taxable service it received, the mere failure to endorse the new service on its registration certificate is not, without more, a default warranting penalty under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994; in the absence of any deliberate default intended to cause evasion of tax, the penalty under that section is not sustainable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 98/2013 dated 20.8.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy)
M/s. SRF Limited Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Trichy Respondent
Appearance
Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 16.09.2015
Final Order No. 41213 / 2015
Appellant explains that it was registered on 1.3.2005 before the service tax authorities. This is patent from pages 36 & 37 of the appeal folder. The service for which it was registered was goods transport agency. Although it was registered for that service, when it received business auxiliary service from abroad it has also discharged service tax liability under the deeming provision of law. There was no default at all in discharge of tax liability. But because it could not amend its registration certificate from 1.3.2005 to 25.11.2011, it was penalized under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is the prayer of the appellant to waive out the penalty in absence of default to registration of Business Auxiliary Service in its registration certificate.
2. Revenue supports the order of the authorities below.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. No doubt registration is a paraphernalia to bring the assessee into the fold of law. The assessee was already brought into the fold of law from 1.3.2005. So it cannot be said that it is an unregistered assessee. Only there was an absence of endorsement of the new activity in the registration certificate. That does not amount to default when the assessee consciously discharged tax liability. It does not appear from the conduct of the assessee that it is required to be dealt coersively under law for the non-endorsement of the different activity which was carried out subsequently.
5. Considering the registration status of the assessee and no deliberate default to cause evasion to Revenue, the penalty imposed under section 77 is waived and appeal is 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