The Kurnool Municipal Corporation vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 18/2012 (T) ST dated 22/02/2012 & Order-in-Appeal No 19/2012 (T) ST dated 24/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, 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? No 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

THE KURNOOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KURNOOL PO, KURNOOL DIST AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax TIRUPATI 9/86-A, BEHIND WEST CHURCH COMPOUND, AMARAVATHI NAGAR, M.R.PALLI  517 502. AP

Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None (Written submission) C.H. VENKATESWARA RAO 5-21-104,2/18, Brodiept, GUNTUR - 522002 AP For the Appellant

Mr. S. Ilangovan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 06/01/2015

Date of Decision: 06/01/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20052-20053 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

On matter being called, our attention stands drawn towards the letter dated 6.1.2015 written by the appellants advocate admitting their service tax liability along with interest and praying for setting aside the penalties, by following an identical other Final Order No.25622/2013 dated 22.7.2013 in the case of Guntur Municipal Corporation.

2. Accordingly, we have gone through the impugned orders and have heard the learned DR. Service tax stands confirmed against the appellant along with interest in respect of services of renting of immovable property. We find that identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunals decision in the case of Guntur Municipal Corporation referred supra. For better appreciation, we reproduce para 3 of the above said order.

3. Heard both the sides. The demand of service tax is for the period from May 2006 to March 2011 on the services of renting of immovable property and selling of space/advertisement by the appellant-Municipality. The learned counsel does not dispute the liability but submits that the appellant being a Municipality was under a bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay and subsequently when the issue was taken up by the department, they were waiting for exemption to be granted by Central Government. He submits that the appellant is not disputing service tax liability which has already been recovered with interest. The only request is that the penalties imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 should be set aside. Having regard to the fact that Government of Andhra Pradesh was trying to get exemption and appellant is a Municipality, we consider that payment of service tax with interest would meet the ends of justice and there is no need for imposition of penalties. Further, we also consider that the appellant has known reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax and therefore, this is a fit case of provision of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2.1 By following the same and as admitted by the appellant in the above referred letter, we confirm the service tax and interest but set aside the penalties imposed under various Sections of Finance Act, 1994. Stay as also appeal gets disposed of in above manner.

(Operative part of the Order was dictated in Open Court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv 3