The Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

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

COURT No. II

APPEAL No.ST/351/12

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.US/170/RGD/2012 dated 14/03/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai)

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?

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

The Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Respondent

Appearance: None for appellant Shri.A.B.Kulgod, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent

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

Date of Hearing : 20/03/2015 Date of Decision : 20/03/2015

ORDER NO

The appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No.US/170/RGD/2012 dated 14/03/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the learned lower appellate authority has confirmed the service tax demand of Rs.3,04,384/- along with interest thereon, apart from imposing penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before me.

2. This is the third time the appeal is coming before this Tribunal for hearing. When the matter was heard on 15/09/2014, it was adjourned to 07/11/2014 as a last chance and the appellant thereafter sought one more adjournment which was granted on 23/01/2015 and the case was listed for hearing today. Today also none represented for the appellant. The appellant has been given sufficient notice and has chosen not to be present. Therefore, I proceed to hear the matter with the assistance of the learned DR.

3. The learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue submits that the only challenge is against the penalties imposed under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Otherwise the service tax liability along with interest has already been discharged by the appellant and is not disputed. From the appeal memorandum and the records, it is seen that both these liabilities have been discharged prior to the issue of show-cause notice dated 11/02/2010. If that is so, the matter could have been settled/closed under the provisions of Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act. There was no need for the Revenue to continue the matter by issuing show-cause notice and passing orders. Inasmuch as the appellant has discharged the service tax liability along with interest thereon prior to issue of show-cause notice, the question on issue of show-cause notice merely for the sake of imposition of penalty was not warranted. Accordingly, I set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant and allow the appeal.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical)

pj

1 3