Shiv Logistics vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

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

COURT No. II

APPEAL No.ST/89295/13

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.NGP/EXCUS/000/APP/731/13-14 dated 31/07/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, 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?

========================================

Shiv Logistics Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Respondent

Appearance: None for appellant Shri.B.K.Iyer, Supdt. (AR), for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 31/03/2015 Date of Decision : 31/03/2015

ORDER NO

1. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.NGP/EXCUS/000/APP/731/13-14 dated 31/07/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur. Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has upheld the order-in-original dated 23/11/2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, Nagpur, wherein a service tax liability of Rs.3,33,069/- has been confirmed against the appellant, M/s.Shiv Logistics along with interest thereon and penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the said Finance Act have been imposed. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before me.

2. None represented the appellant despite notice. However, in the appeal memorandum, the appellant is only pleading for waiver of penalties, inasmuch as the service tax with interest liability has been discharged much before the issue of show-cause notice and seeking invocation of provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. The learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.

4. After considering the submission made by the DR and also perusing the records, it is a clear case where the provisions of Section 73 (3) should have been given effect to inasmuch as the service tax liability along with interest has been discharged prior to the issue of notice. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant under the provisions of Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are not sustainable and accordingly, I set aside the impugned order to the extent it seeks to impose penalties and allow the appeal to that extent.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical)

pj

1 3