M/S Swan Silk Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Bangalore

Appeal(s) Involved: ST/1978/2011-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 281/2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 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

M/s SWAN SILK PVT LTD 'SWAN HOUSE', 40,4TH CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025 Appellant(s) Versus

Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, Above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE - 560071 Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. GIRISH. K, C. A. NO.36, CHATURA HOMES, 2ND MAIN, MEENAKSHINAGAR NEAR KRISHNA KALYANA MANTAPA, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE  590079 For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, A.R. For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 11/08/2015 Date of Decision: 11/08/2015 CORAM :

HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21785 / 2015

Both parties, namely M/s Swan Silk Pvt Ltd. and Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, were represented by learned advocate, Mr. K. Ganesh and learned A.R., Mr. Pakshirajan for the appellant and the respondent respectively.

2. Learned advocate points out that the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, can not be sustained in the case of old demands; however, there is a delay of 45 days in payment of service tax for the period of November 2006; and for this delay of 45 days, the appellant is willing to pay the penalty. Learned advocate pleads that the matter may be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to correctly calculate the liability of penalty which has to be calculated for the delay of 45 days only; he also points out that the appellant already paid in excess Rs. 23,053/- for which he requested the deduction from the penalty amount; the appellant is willing to pay the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. Learned A.R., Mr. Pakshirajan agrees with the submissions of the appellants advocate.

4. The submissions by both the sides have been considered. It is made clear that the appellant is liable for payment of penalty only for 45 days delay in payment of service tax in the year 2006. There is no delay in the payment of service tax for the remaining period.

5. The matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for recalculation of the penalty in terms of the above discussion. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

(Pronounced in open court)

(ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) /vc/