Rayat Ssk Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

APPEAL No.ST/89 to 91/11

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.PII/AV/160-162/2010 dated 23/09/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================

Rayat SSK Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Kolhapur

Appearance: Shri.None for appellant Shri.S.R.Nair, EO (AR), for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 09/07/2015 Date of Decision : 09/07/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.PII/AV/160-162/2010 dated 23/09/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune.

2. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue lies in a narrow compass; accordingly, we take up the appeals for disposal even in the absence of any representation from appellant.

3. Heard the learned DR.

4. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the issue involved in these cases is regarding the non-discharge of service tax liability during the period 01/01/2005 to 31/03/2009 of demand raised in various show-cause notices; the confirmation of demands along with interest and penalties have been imposed on the ground that the appellant had not discharged tax liability on the Goods Transport Agency service. We find from the records that the appellant in the appeals before the first appellate authority did not dispute the tax liability but pleaded that they could not discharge the tax liability due to financial hardship. We find that the first appellate authority has categorically recorded that the financial hardship cannot be an excuse for non-payment of service tax. On perusal of the grounds of appeals as filed by the appellant, the appellant is now trying to state that the activity undertaken by them would not fall under the head Goods Transport Agency Service. It is also the ground that the demands raised are inflated. We find no merits in the grounds of appeals raised by the appellant before the Tribunal inasmuch as having accepted before the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority of their tax liability, are of the view that they are liable to discharge the service tax liability but did not do so because of financial hardship. We find that the impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity.

5. The impugned order is upheld and the appeals are rejected.

(Dictated in Court)

(Raju) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

pj

1 2