Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Jalandhar (Hqrs. At v. M/s Akash Kumar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Finance Act, 1994 ss. 76, 80
Judgment
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL. Present : Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate Standing counsel for CIT. for the appellant. Mr. V.M.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J.(Oral). (1) The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short – the Act) against the order Annexure P-2 dated 20.06.2007 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, proposing to raise following substantial questions : “i) Whether CESTAT's Order setting aside Order-in- CEA No.23 of 2008 2 Revision enhancing penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the ground that tax deposited along with penalty before issue of revision order is legal in view of situation that no reasonable cause for waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, have been adduced by the respondent. ii) Whether CESTAT is correct in placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs.
Operative part
Sunitha Shetty–2004(174) (Karnataka) without discussing its application in the present case.” (2) The assessee is assessable to service tax for the insurance and auxiliary services. On account of delay in payment of tax, show cause notice was issued to levy penalty. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty of Rs.200/- per day which was more than the amount of tax and thus beyond maximum penalty leviable. The Revisional Authority reduced the amount of penalty to Rs.10,167/- for delay of 129 days which was equal to 100% of the service tax. (3) The Revenue approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal following the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CCE, Banglore Vs. Sunitha Shetty – 2004(174) ELT 313, dismissed the appeal. (4) It is not disputed that under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, penalty for delay in service tax cannot exceed the amount of service tax which the assessee is liable to pay. The said section is reproduced below :
76. - Penalty for failure to collect or pay service tax.- Any CEA No.23 of 2008 3 person, liable to pay service tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 or the rules made thereunder, who fails to pay such tax shall pay in addition to paying such tax, and interest on the tax in accordance with the provisions of section 75, a penalty which shall not be less than one hundred rupees but which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which such failure continues, so, however, that the penalty under this clause shall not exceed the amount of service tax that he failed to pay.
(5) In view of the above provision, the view taken by the Revisional Authority is the only possible view. (6) (7) No substantial question, thus, arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE ( L.N. MITTAL ) JUDGE October 31, 2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Finance Act, 1994 — ss. 76, 80.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 31 Oct 2008. The bench was ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, L N MITTAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.